• 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

Department of Homeland Security = DHS!

Biden administration loses court ruling on ICE deportations guidelines

KAREN TOWNSEND Mar 23, 2022 at HotAir:

Judge Michael Newman of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled on Tuesday that the memo issued by DHS Secretary Mayorkas to ICE agents on deportations violates the law. The memo instructed ICE officers to prioritize certain groups of immigrants for arrest and deportation. The federal judge ruled that Mayorkas’ memo violates deportation laws. ICE agents break the law as they follow the guidance issued by Mayorkas on deportation.

In October 2021 Mayorkas issued a memo meant to create levels of priority in deportation decisions. ICE agents were told to pursue only the illegal immigrants who are deemed as either national security threats or public safety threats. Also, priority is to be given to those who crossed the border illegally most recently. The memo is similar to two others issued earlier in 2021 by the Biden administration. All of the memos narrow the categories of illegal immigrants who are subject to deportation.

The October 2021 memo, as well as the previous ones, are a part of Biden’s plan to end deportation of illegal immigrants a pledge he campaigned on when he ran for president in 2020. He promised to freeze deportations and issue blanket amnesty to illegal aliens already living in the United States. In the first six months of his term in office, deportations were down by 90%. By February 2022, deportations were at a five year low.

The new rules are a travesty and result in cases like DHS rescinding a deportation order for an illegal alien who killed a 19 year old driver in a car crash. Apparently, opinions on public safety threats are subjective. The new rules give more discretion to the ICE agents in deportations and that is where the rub comes in, according to Judge Newman’s ruling. ICE agents decide whether or not illegal immigrants with criminal convictions threaten public safety. Agents are instructed to consider factors like the gravity of the offense, as well as prior arrests. Prior service in the military can be used as a mitigating factor in decisions, and the amount of time the illegal immigrant has lived in the United States. In other words, if there is a compelling story to tell about how the illegal immigrant has lived in this country long enough to find a job, pay local and state taxes, and live as a part of a local community, that person probably isn’t thought to be enough of a threat to deport. This thinking is what ushers in blanket amnesty. It puts ICE agents sideways with existing laws, too, according to Judge Newman.

Judge Newman’s ruling means that ICE agents will not be able to use Mayorkas’ guidance memo when making deportation decisions on illegal immigrants facing mandatory deportation.

In his ruling, Newman recognized that federal officials have discretion when enforcing immigration laws, saying Mayorkas’ “balancing analysis is acceptable at certain points in the removal process.” But he said Congress mandated the detention of immigrants with certain criminal convictions and those with final orders of deportation.

“The Permanent Guidance displaces the custody and removal factors Congress intended DHS officials to consider for its extra-textual totality-of-the-circumstances analysis,” Newman wrote in his 79-page opinion.

Through his nationwide injunction, Newman prohibited federal agents from relying on Mayorkas’ guidance to make “custody decisions” about immigrants subject to mandatory detention. He also blocked the use of the memo to release or delay the deportation of immigrants with final orders of deportation.

One reason Mayorkas changed the rules to prioritize deportations is because of the mess created by the Biden border crisis. Border Patrol and other law enforcement agents on the border cannot keep up with the flood of illegal immigrants. Joe Biden promised open borders, essentially, and the world listened. Migrants began to flood the border as soon as Biden came into office expecting to be waved in and allowed to stay.

We will wait and see if ICE complies with the ruling handed down by Judge Newman. The Justice Department can appeal the order. This is the latest example of the continuing legal battles between the Biden administration and state officials looking for solutions for the humanitarian and public health crisis on the border. This order by Judge Newman is a victory for Republican officials in Arizona, Montana, and Ohio. They filed the lawsuit against Mayorkas’ memo. Thanks to persistent resistance by officials in border states, as well as other states who are dealing with the fall-out of Biden’s border crisis, Biden has not had the smooth transition he thought he would have in border policy. He has done his best to do away with policies and agreements that worked in the previous administration. Biden shows no inclination to protect the sovereignty of the United States.

In January, Mayorkas boasted about the “fundamental” change he is ushering in at DHS.

“We have fundamentally changed immigration enforcement in the interior,” Mayorkas told CBS News. “For the first time ever, our policy explicitly states that a non-citizen’s unlawful presence in the United States will not, by itself, be a basis for the initiation of an enforcement action.”

It’s nothing to brag about. The Biden administration shows weakness in enforcing our laws and keeping our borders secure. It’s a national security issue and a top priority in the president’s job description. Joe Biden continues to fail us miserably.

Gravatar Note….Regarding a Conservative Donna Brown!

Donne Reports: I was born in Buffalo New York. Moved to California when I was eight. Traveled a bit through the United States. Chicago Illinois, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Florida, Los Vegas, Carson City, & Reno Navada, Utah, Kansas City, South. ..just to name a few.:○] Out side of the United States, I traveled the Canadian Highway four times..to & from Alaska, Traveled to Mexico to shop a few times and lived in Yokosuka Japan for a year. Raised my children in Alaska, and I now reside on earth in a world that’s on fire. The only way that I have found to quench the flames is through my expression of poetry, photography, painting, etc… True serenity is finding peace in the midst of the storm. May God have mercy on us all… In Jesus Name, amen…..

and welcome Donna Brown!


March 23, 2022 | The Washington Times

The death of MAD

And the urgent need to reestablish deterrence

by Clifford D. May Founder & President

Central to America’s Cold War strategy was the principle of MAD – Mutually Assured Destruction. The idea was to make nuclear warfare a lose-lose proposition. Whichever side was attacked would retain the capability to counterattack. Both sides would end up devastated if not annihilated.

I studied MAD in graduate school and considered it sane. I had spent time in the Soviet Union and concluded that the men in the Kremlin were evil but rational. They believed that Marxists like themselves were on the right side of history (to coin a phrase) so there was no need for “adventurism.” And the horrors Russia had suffered in World War II were still fresh in their memories.

Now, however, Vladimir Putin rules the roost. He’s no dialectical materialist. He’s more of a L’etat c’est moi kind of guy. To be fair, he’s not alone in believing that he’s destined to be the redeemer and czar of Russky Mir, Russian World, the idealized vision of a revived pan-Russian or even pan-Slavic empire.

Three days after invading Ukraine he put his nuclear forces on alert – the term he used was “special combat readiness.” He warned the U.S. and other NATO countries that any attempt to prevent him from pillaging and conquering his neighbor would result in consequences “such as you have never seen in your entire history.”

Was he threatening to use chemical or tactical nuclear weapons against Ukrainians? Or cyberattacks against Americans? Or was he saying he won’t play by MAD rules? We can only guess which means he has established what’s known as “strategic ambiguity.”

He dares to be so aggressive now because his many past aggressions and transgressions elicited only feckless responses from the U.S., NATO, and the chimera known as “the international community.”

President Biden, from the moment he moved into the White House, has been eager to placate Mr. Putin and reluctant to “provoke” him. Last year, he restricted arms assistance to Ukraine, gave his blessing to the Nord Stream 2 pipeline (while curbing domestic oil and gas production) and agreed to a five-year renewal of the 2010 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty despite Russia’s record of cheating and the fact that the agreement imposes no limits on Mr. Putin’s shorter-range nuclear weapons – the kind he might use against Ukraine or in a future war against NATO.

These policies were consistent with those of President Obama who seemed to believe that his magnetic personality coupled with clever diplomacy could alleviate all tensions with Moscow, Tehran, and others.

But back to MAD: One president was uncomfortable relying on it even in Soviet times. President Reagan’s plans for high-tech missile defense were derided by his critics as “Star Wars,” a crazy scheme to “hit a bullet with a bullet.”

Nevertheless, research and development yielded results during his administration and the George H.W. Bush administration that followed. In August 2009, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bragged that an American “defense umbrella” would protect the U.S. and its allies from nuclear weapons that North Korea possessed and that the Islamic Republic of Iran was attempting to acquire.

I had my doubts. So did Ilan Berman, vice president of the American Foreign Policy Council. We responded by publishing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal granting that a “defense umbrella” was a marvelous idea but adding that America’s was full of holes.

The George W. Bush administration had worked only on missile-defense systems capable of intercepting a small number of ballistic missiles. There had been no attempt to build a comprehensive architecture, one that would be capable of neutralizing a large salvo of nuclear-tipped missiles.

To build that would require much more research, development, and funding. But both the Obama administration and Congress were – at that moment –slashing the Pentagon’s budget for antimissile systems.

In addition, as part of his “reset” with Russia, Mr. Obama relinquished the Bush administration’s plan to deploy ground-based radars and interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic. That system was intended to defend only against missiles from the Islamic Republic of Iran, but Mr. Putin charged that it might protect Americans from his missiles which would violate the MAD doctrine.

On the American left, there were objections to space-based missile defense on the grounds that such systems would “militarize” space. “This is dead wrong,” Mr. Berman and I countered. “A space-based missile defense capability would instead block and destroy weapons that enter the Earth’s orbit on their way to their targets.”

We concluded: “The capability to make Iranian, North Korean, and other foreign missiles useless has already been developed and field-tested. Only America has it, and we should deploy it.” We urged the U.S. government to build, as rapidly as possible, “a comprehensive and impenetrable ‘defense umbrella’ to protect itself and its allies.”

Needless to say, our advice was not taken. Nor did the Trump administration make missile defense a priority.

Over the weekend, Mr. Putin used a hypersonic ballistic missile to destroy an underground arms depot in western Ukraine. It was another threatening message to the U.S. which has not yet fielded its own hypersonic missiles and is very late in developing defenses against them.

MAD had its day. That day passed. Robust deterrence – a capability based on overwhelming military power, clear projection of the will to utilize it, coupled with defense systems that make it much harder for our enemies’ missiles to reach their intended victims – should have been the highest national security priority of American leaders from both parties.

Instead, we took a holiday from history and spent a peace dividend. We ought to be correcting those mistakes without further delay. We’d be mad not to.

Clifford D. May is founder and president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and a columnist for the Washington Times. Follow him on Twitter @CliffordDMay. FDD is a nonpartisan research institute focusing on national security and foreign policy. READ IN THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Mindless Biden Is Headed Off To NATO Conference…..to stutter what speech?

March 23, 2022

Joe Biden, Ukraine, and a Reign of Error

By Doris O’Brien at American Thinker:

Several decades ago, my then-elderly mother was mugged in a New York City subway station.  She was knocked to the hard ground by a male stranger, who ran off with her purse.  According to reports, there were several other passengers on the platform, but none of them came to her aid.

Fortunately, my mother was not seriously hurt.  Her material loss included several valuable pieces of jewelry, which she had kept in a bank vault, aware of the possibility of their being stolen from her apartment.  Having retrieved and worn them over the weekend, she had put them in her purse and was on her way to returning them when she was mugged.

Such a brutal incident was not that unusual, even then.  And perhaps my mother might have felt relieved to emerge from it relatively unscathed.  There have always been bad actors taking advantage of the vulnerable.  And in a burgeoning society increasingly reluctant to “get involved” with strangers, the job of the evildoer is facilitated.

This senseless subway incident roars back at me whenever — like an idle bystander — I observe on TV the horror in Ukraine.  As the outrageous war images multiply, I feel as conflicted as the shocked passengers on the subway platform — mindful of the right thing to do yet minding my own business, because, quite frankly, that is of greater immediate concern.

Russia’s month-long assault on Ukraine has only grown more brutal.  What is happening there represents within a single year a second military incursion in which the reaction of the United States has lacked clarity and focus.  In both aggressions, Biden presumed that the battles were not ours to fight.  He even refers to the current action against Ukraine as “Putin’s War.”  Not long ago, Joe reminded us that what was happening in Kabul was not “our war,” either.  In fact, he was relieved to be withdrawing from the mess, abandoning billions of dollars of equipment and presuming that the Afghan forces would determine the country’s fate.

Biden may jaw about how the buck stops at his desk, but he rarely assumes responsibility for what’s going on here or abroad — unless, of course, the news is favorable.  During his ignominious retreat from Afghanistan, he shrugged off queries about the recent deaths of Afghans desperately clinging to the wings of departing aircraft, regarding it as old news.

Another discouraging parallel between the Biden administration’s handling of the Afghan and Ukraine crises is the fact that in both events, “conventional wisdom” — based on our “intelligence” — proved dead wrong.  Before America’s leave-taking from Afghanistan, Biden assured us that the Afghan air force was more than up to the task.  He even described it as an impressive, well-trained fighting group that would have no problem with any opposition.  And despite hundreds of intelligence personnel on the ground in Afghanistan at the time, there was little reported awareness that the Taliban were gobbling up other Afghan cities on their inexorable march toward Kabul.

Frighteningly, the same pattern of miscalculation and negligence appears to be happening in this administration’s assessment of the Ukraine situation.  One wonders what Biden and Putin chatted about during their face-to-face meeting in June of last year.

Whatever it was, Biden, who minced out of the meeting looking vaguely hopeful, proved totally ineffective in stopping Putin from eventually invading Ukraine.  And he was slow on the uptake to help the Ukrainians repel the invasion.

Once the fighting began, many liberal pundits gave viewers the impression that determined Ukrainian forces, though hugely outnumbered by Russia’s military, would nevertheless prevail.  We saw images of stalled Russian columns, badly in need of food and fuel supplies.  There were rumors of defections among the Russian ranks.

That was the tale they wanted us to believe.  Such coverage led us to assume that a discouraged Putin might be in retreat and the war would soon be over.  Surely the Biden administration had a more realistic grasp on the situation.  But once again, we were flummoxed by those who run our non-transparent government.  How much sheer incompetence does it take before we lose all faith in them?

Now Biden is heading off to a NATO conference in Brussels, as if anything he has to say will make much of a difference.  And, scarier still, as if he is even aware that such is the case.

Perhaps the most chilling prospect during Biden’s brief reign of error is that America, once the leader of the free world, is clearly losing its clout.  Our back is to the wall, shoved there by Russia’s threat of worldwide nuclear war, China’s acquiescence to Putin’s treachery, and Biden’s policy — from “day one” — that has made America energy-dependent on Russia and other rogue states.

Despite this administration’s threats against Russia, Putin is still in the catbird seat and in control of his people.  Biden may saber-rattle with the best of them, even calling out Vlad as a villainous war criminal.  But the nations of the world have caught on to Old Joe.  In light of his failures at home and abroad, they dare not depend on someone who is tongue-tied without a teleprompter and, more importantly, exhibits the pointless bravado of a man who puts politics above principle.

Like Americans, the rest of the world is watching developments in Ukraine with a heightened sense of today’s horror and tomorrow’s dread.  An attack against Russia could mean Armageddon.  Suddenly, global warming seems less catastrophic than global war.

So like the passengers on the subway platform who did nothing during a brutal attack on another human being, we tend to measure this latest atrocity with the yardstick of our own self-interests.

As long as Putin is in charge, we can no longer dismiss the rhetoric coming out of the Kremlin as mere “Russian disinformation.”  Yet at the same time — and with good reason — Americans are growing more skeptical of what our own government tells us.

As the world hangs in the balance, this is hardly the time for a compromised president and his ineffective staff to be calling the shots.


Abandon ship: Putin advisor bails over Ukraine war, flees Russia

ED MORRISSEY Mar 23, 2022 at HotAir:

Alexei Druzhinin

John Kerry hardest hit? Vladimir Putin’s climate-change envoy has fled Russia in protest over the war in Ukraine, Bloomberg reports, making Anatoly Chubais the highest ranking Russian official to oppose the war. Chubais might have been a skeptic of Putin’s anyway, but the defection will be an embarrassment at the very least:

Russian climate envoy Anatoly Chubais has stepped down and left the country, citing his opposition to President Vladimir Putin’s war in Ukraine, according to two people familiar with the situation, becoming the highest-level official to break with the Kremlin over the invasion.

Chubais, 66, is one of the few 1990s-era economic reformers who’d remained in Putin’s government and had maintained close ties with Western officials. Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Known as the architect of Russia’s 1990s privatizations, Chubais gave Putin his first Kremlin job in the mid-1990s and initially welcomed his rise to power at the end of that decade. Under Putin, Chubais took top jobs at big state companies until the president named him envoy for sustainable development last year.

Russian news outlets are reporting on this, surprisingly enough. The UK’s Evening Standard relays from those sources that Chubais is holing up in Turkey:

The source said Mr Chubais had left the country and had no intention of coming back. Bloomberg also reported the “bombshell” departure, citing two inside sources. Russia-based news outlets said he had resigned and was now in Turkey.

He is the highest-profile figure to step down since Russia began what it called a “special military operation” in Ukraine.

Mr Chubais, who once served as former President Boris Yeltsin’s chief of staff, was appointed to the post, which was charged with “achieving goals of sustainable development”, in 2020 days after resigning as the head of state technology firm RUSNANO, which he had run since 2008.

The source did not say why he decided to leave the country. Asked to comment by a Reuters reporter, Mr Chubais hung up his phone.

It’s a dumb question, especially coming from a Western reporter. Putin’s track record of hunting down dissident defectors for assassinations is pretty well established at this point. It’s surprising that Chubais would have stopped in Turkey as close as it is to Russia. Perhaps he’s on his way to a safer, or at least a more distant, location.

Chubais isn’t the first official to publicly resign in protest, although he’s the most prominent thus far. Another oligarchical/industrialist figure made his feelings known last week:

Last week, Arkady Dvorkovich, who was senior economic adviser to Dmitry Medvedev during his presidency and a deputy prime minister until 2018, stepped down as head of the state-backed Skolkovo technology fund after condemning the invasion. Dvorkovich, who’s also president of the International Chess Federation, is one of only a few former senior officials to speak out against the war.

One has to wonder how many others around Putin will stick around, and for how long. Chubais is particularly interesting, though, as Putin’s point man on climate change. John Kerry lamented immediately that the invasion would distract from this important work, but how important is it — and how much of it is driven by Russian propaganda? Chubais may be in position to speak to Russian influence on climate science, and perhaps China’s influence as well.

If he lives to talk about it, that is.

What Don’t KNOWLEDGELESS Lefty Dem School and Political Fems Condone Today?

MARCH 23, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


The New York Times has published a lot of stupid stuff over the years, but this is one of the worst bits of analysis I’ve seen in a long time. It comes from an article on Judge Jackson’s confirmation hearing that is headlined “Judging a Judge on Race and Crime, G.O.P. Plays to Base and Fringe.” It includes this absurd smear:

By making the leniency allegations [re child porn sentencing], Mr. Cruz, Ms. Blackburn and Mr. Hawley appeared to be exploiting echoes of QAnon, which has a broad, almost cultlike reach among some members of the Republican base. The theory was a kind of mutation of an earlier online fiction, known as PizzaGate, which held that Hillary Clinton and her allies were involved in a child sex trafficking ring headquartered in the basement of a Washington pizzeria.

So the only people concerned about child porn are QAnon wackos, which means the Democrats think it is A-OK. Got it. Nice reporting, Times.

That King Of Evil, Barrack Hussein Obama, STILL IN ACTION!

March 23, 2022

Obama’s Third Term and the Destruction of the American Polity

By E. Jeffrey Ludwig at American Thinker:

The paradigm of seeking a balance between the federal government and states began to cave during the Obama years.  Now, under Biden, the abandonment of the federalism paradigm is picking up steam, and we see an attempt to sabotage federalism in favor of a vast federal bureaucracy and regulations and laws produced and upheld by a cadre of antisocial, power-mad elitists.

The replacement is seen in a growing identity with authoritarian regimes and practices such as being soft on Iran and Russia.  Liberty always means support for the individual and locality against the encroachments or belligerence of tyranny.  There is contempt for the states, especially those at our southern border, as we see the federal government breaking its own laws and distributing illegal migrants throughout the country.  We see it In its attacks on the nuclear family and our military by its extreme support of non-heterosexual agendas.  The obsessive climate change agenda enhances globalist encroachments over U.S. sovereignty, and thus reduces the foundational federalism with concomitant liberties of our own sovereign system.

The key principle of our Constitution is the federalist system itself, with shared power between the states and the federal government.  Here, the United States is unique among nations in that the state governments created the federal government.

The government of these United States prior to our Constitution was under the Articles of Confederation.  Under that system, the federal government was purposely weak. Power resided overwhelmingly in each of the separate states.  But without a uniform trade policy, a uniform national tax policy, and a standing army, the sense of unity among the states was diluted.  Even though we had won the War for Independence under a less than unified system, it was clear that in order to survive in the world, we needed to have more unity. 

Thus, the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers into three branches of government; its Bill of Rights; its affirmation against the presence of titles of nobility; its assertion of the importance of habeas corpus (recently diluted or ignored in our treatment of Jan. 6 defendants who as of this writing are still being oppressed); Article 1, Sec. 8, which states 18 categories of laws Congress may pass; Article 1, Sec. 9, which states eight topics of laws Congress may not pass; and Article 1, Sec. 10, which states that three areas of legislation states may not engage in at all establishes a beautiful balance between decentralized and centralized governance.  Because of the comprehensiveness of these articles particularly, some did not consider the Bill of Rights necessary, since the duties and no-nos of legislation were already contained in the document.  But because their ancestors in England already had enunciated many rights of Englishmen in 1689, it was considered wise to emphasize that hundred-year-old heritage.

Although the scope of federal legislation was enlarged by the so-called progressive presidents early in the 20th century, and later by the New Deal, there was still a great deal of ambivalence in our society — even among many New Deal Democrats — that perhaps the federal government was getting too much power.  That sense of balance between the separate states and the federal government still resonated with both parties, albeit less so with the Democrats, who had too many aggressive leftists even in the 1940s — men like the Democrat secretary of commerce Henry Wallace, who eventually ran against Harry Truman for president in 1948 as the Progressive candidate.

However, in the Obama years, we saw a shift in the pro-Constitution paradigm that was shared by both the Republicans and Democrats, despite the Democrat excesses over a few decades in expanding the scope of federal authority.  That shift can be clearly seen by the sign-off of the Obama administration in 2015 in support of U.N. Agenda 2030.  This commitment by our government (which, by the way, was not rescinded by President Trump) places our government’s activities on the world stage within a globalist paradigm built around the idea of “sustainability.”

This agenda is not mainly an agenda of countries, nor of states or provinces or other localities within countries.  Rather, it is an approach to solving global issues by “stakeholders.”  Stakeholders include governments, but they also include “civil society, the private sector, and others [non-specified].”  This worldwide behemoth will thus transcend classic distinctions and nation-state ideals where governments (in our case federalism and concomitant liberties) define society.  Rather, governments, including the USA, are part of a more complex venture.  This more complex venture, we are told in the United Nations’ sustainability document, “will require resource mobilization and financing strategies.”  These strategies “will require quality, accessible, and timely data collection and regional follow-up and review.”

What lies behind these vapid, vague words is never specified.  Will all citizens of all countries be required to fill out forms regularly as part of this “data collection” as we now do with our income tax?  Will the U.S. budget process already mired in thousands of pages and a regular cause of consternation among the legislators and the citizens now have to include increasingly large allocations for “resource mobilization and financing strategies”?  The opaque wording should be a cause of concern to every adult citizen of the USA.

We should also note that Agenda 2030 shifts from an emphasis upon rights, which appears in almost every sentence in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed by all countries with only eight abstentions and no negative votes, in 1948.  Thus, the U.N. at that time used rhetoric that was in no way a threat to our system of government or our sovereignty.  Like us, the whole world said rights were of uppermost importance.  Rights, liberty, separation of powers, and federalism were mutually enforcing ideas and institutional realities.  Now, 74 years later, the goals of Agenda 2030 do not seem to reflect the historical and institutional values of our country.  The word “rights” appears only once in Agenda 2030 in Section 19.

How will this new vision be implemented?  The U.N. tells us that “resources need to be mobilized from domestic and international sources, as well as from the public and private sectors.”  If ever there was a sentence that called for specifics, this is it.  You see, dear reader, you and I compose the private sector, even if we are employed by a governmental entity.  We tend to think our money belongs to us, but this mealy-mouthed language leaves that as an open question in the new sustainable world order.

The electric company in NYC sends out notices with bills advising people to wash their clothes in cold water.  This is an energy-saving measure and is consistent with sustainability.  Although this advice is local, it is also at the same time global.  It bypasses local and state legislation and clearly points to a time when it will not be a suggestion but will be required.  This writer heard Obama state in an interview that he believed in remote controls over home thermostats but that there were some practical issues of conversion to that that still had to be overcome. This means the complete destruction of consumer choice, and by invading the home, he clearly was going beyond the constitutional restraints on the power and authority of the federal government in our Constitution.  Today’s suggestion undoubtedly is tomorrow’s controlling command.

Sustainability was a key Obama commitment during his term of office, and it is a key commitment today.  The paradigm of federalism on which our system was founded continues to be undermined by our present administration, which has intensified the radical path of sustainability Obama propelled us on.


Sanctions on Russia Pit the West Against the Rest of the World

Woke Democrats are less welcome than Trumpian populists in many countries.

By Walter Russell Mead at Wall Street Journal:

March 21, 2022

People in Hong Kong last month watched the news that Russian troops launched their attack on Ukraine.PHOTO: VINCENT YU/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Listen to article

As the consequences of the Russian-Ukrainian war ricochet through global politics, the West has never been more closely aligned. It has also rarely been more alone. Allies in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization plus Australia and Japan are united in revulsion against Vladimir Putin’s war and are cooperating with the most sweeping sanctions since World War II. The rest of the world, not so much.

In a development that suggests trouble ahead, China’s basic approach—not endorsing Moscow’s aggression but resisting Western efforts to punish Russia—has garnered global support. South African President Cyril Ramaphosa blamed the war on NATO. Brazil’s president, Jair Bolsonaro, refused to condemn Russia. India and Vietnam, essential partners for any American strategy in the Indo-Pacific, are closer to China than the U.S. in their approach to the war.

Western arm-twisting and the powerful effect of bank sanctions ensure a certain degree of sanctions compliance and support for symbolic U.N. resolutions condemning Russian aggression. But the lack of non-Western enthusiasm for America’s approach to Mr. Putin’s war is a phenomenon that U.S. policy makers ignore at their peril. Just as Western policy makers, lost in fantasies about building a “posthistorical world,” failed to grasp the growing threat of great-power competition, they have failed to note the development of a gap between the West and the rest of the world that threatens to hand the revisionist powers major opportunities in coming years. The Biden administration appears not to understand the gap between Washington and what used to be called the Third World, the degree to which its own policies contribute to the divide, or the opportunities this gap creates for China.

Opposition to Russia looked like a global slam dunk to many in the West. World opinion would so robustly oppose Moscow’s attack that countries like China would pay a high political price for failing to jump onto the anti-Russia bandwagon.

That is not how it is working. Some countries, like America’s disheartened and alienated Middle East allies, worry about backing a withdrawing Washington against an ascendant Russia. Others balance their detestation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine against other concerns. Many non-Western countries fear the consequences of Western responses to Russia’s behavior more than they fear Russia, don’t trust the West’s willingness or ability to manage the economic consequences of the war in ways that protect the interests of non-Western states, and are shocked by the imposition of sanctions on Russia’s central bank—a weapon they fear will one day be directed against them.

While enthusiastic Western liberals hail the imposition of sanctions on Russia, the increased willingness of the Western powers to weaponize the global economic system horrifies leaders in many countries who think the West is too powerful already. Many Brazilians have long feared that Western environmentalists intend to block the development of the Amazon basin. They worry that climate activists might force the Federal Reserve and other Western banks to “save the planet” by imposing sanctions on Brazil. Policy makers in India and elsewhere share many of these fears as they see environmental campaigners using global economic institutions to impose their agenda on countries with different priorities.

Mr. Putin’s claim that an overpowerful West seeks to use its economic and institutional leverage to impose a radical worldview on the rest of the planet strikes Western liberals as self-serving propaganda, but his arguments resonate more widely than most liberals understand. The Trump administration’s unilateral imposition of tough sanctions against Iran heightened international awareness of how much power the global economic system gives the U.S. But woke Democrats using economic sanctions to impose their views on climate, gender and other issues are even less welcome in many countries than Trumpian populists.

To those who share this perspective, an unpredictable America at the helm of the liberal West is a greater threat to the independence of many postcolonial states than Russian or even Chinese ambition could ever be. Chinese propaganda about the need for alternative economic arrangements that limit Western power are significantly more influential now than they were a month ago.

None of this means that the West is wrong to oppose Mr. Putin’s war (or, for that matter, to concern itself with climate change and the rights of sexual minorities). But the job of protecting world peace is harder and more complicated than many newly enthusiastic neo-cold-warriors have yet understood. What used to be called the Global South does not always share the priorities and perspectives of Yale Law School. Neither Donald Trump nor the woke left inspires confidence around the world, and an American political system that appears doomed to oscillate between them won’t indefinitely maintain the leadership on which America’s peace and security depend.

WSJ Opinion: Ukraine, Russia and the Fear of World War III

Biden’s Court Choice IS A LEFTY REBEL BY CHOICE!!

MARCH 22, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


It goes without saying that leftists have perfected the art of situational ethics. The basic operating rule for the left is: “‘Democracy’ means getting what we want; if any institution doesn’t give us what we want, that institution must be destroyed,” though they will always call it “reform.”

Consider the cliche of the last few years that “democracy is in peril,” and then let this Washington Post headline settle in at a leisurely pace:

From “democracy in crisis” to rule by decree faster than Vin Diesel in Fast & Furious 10. (Shouldn’t Vin Diesel change his last name in this time of the climate crisis? Maybe some other time. . .)

We now see this in the case of the Supreme Court, which is infuriating liberals because it no longer serves as a policy-making body for the left to use as an end-run around the branches of government accountable to voters.

Look no further than the primal scream in the latest issue of the New York Review of Books from long-time Supreme Court “reporter” Linda Greenhouse. Sober Court watchers have long noted the “Greenhouse Effect,” which in this case has nothing to do with climate change. It refers to the supposedly soothing, no-ideology-to-see-here persona Greenhouse has affected for decades.

Her article is predictably entitled, “Should We Reform the Supreme Court?” In other words, should we add more Justices or change it around in some way so as to “restore” it as a Progressive battering ram. The subhed provides the dead giveaway: “The legal academy is close to giving up on the Supreme Court.” You know how upset leftist academics can be when the rest of the world ignores them.

Greenhouse openly pines for a return to the glory days of the Warren Court:

“What did the Warren Court stand for?” the legal historian Morton J. Horwitz asked in The Warren Court and the Pursuit of Justice(1998), a paean to the period. Horwitz and Breyer were both born in 1938. Their contemporaries, titans of liberal constitutional scholarship like Owen Fiss of Yale and Laurence Tribe of Harvard, eventually came to staff and even dominate the nation’s law school faculties. Nearly any member of this cohort, many of them Warren Court clerks like Fiss and Tribe, might have given an answer similar to the one Horwitz offered: “Like no other court before or since, it stood for an expansive conception of the democratic way of life as the foundational ideal of constitutional interpretation.” . . .

What shines through the testimony presented by younger scholars at the [Biden Court Reform] commission’s public hearings is how little idealism remains, or at least how little of it has been embraced by a generation for which the Warren Court exists only in books. The Supreme Court in retrenchment, in thrall to the mid-twentieth-century’s invented construct of “originalism” as the key to the meaning of the Constitution, has been the overriding fact of their professional lives. . . Taken as a whole, the commission’s work lets the public in on the fact that the legal academy is close to giving up on the Supreme Court.

Of course, the “legal academy” giving up on the Supreme Court is ironically good news, though Greenhouse lacks the intellectual equipment to grasp the possibilities of this.

Even more amusing is her treatment of court-packing, which embeds all of the left’s tacit presumptions:

For those seeking a quicker fix for the present ideological imbalance on the Court, expansion—or packing, to use the pejorative that is forever attached to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s failed proposal of 1937—has obvious appeal. Two members of the commission, Laurence Tribe and Nancy Gertner, a retired federal district judge, began by favoring term limits but came to support expansion as the only effective counter to the Republicans’ manipulation of the confirmation process, as they explained in a Washington Post op-ed shortly after the report was issued. “A Supreme Court that has been effectively packed by one party will remain packed into the indefinite futurewith serious consequences to our democracy,” the two wrote. “This is a uniquely perilous moment that demands a unique response.”

While FDR’s court-packing scheme failed in 1937, he ended up appointing nine Supreme Court justices, all of them pro-New Deal, and I don’t recall any of the sainted “legal academics” expressing concern about the “ideological imbalance” of the Court, or that its usurpation of legislative power posed “serious consequences to our democracy.” Because that kind of threat can only come from people who disagree with Progressivism. QED.

A Touch of Prager Music From The Past