• 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 25, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


Harvard screwed Roland Fryer. That’s what happened to Roland Fryer. National Association of Scholars President Peter Wood’s Spectator column “When Harvard canceled a black professor” applies Wood’s academic expertise to tell the story. As if we didn’t have enough to be indignant about, we now have the case — the rise and fall — of Professor Fryer to digest. Wood’s column includes a link to the excellent video by Rob Montz (below). The video is accompanied by the following account:

Roland Fryer was an unlikely Harvard superstar. Abandoned by his mom at birth and raised by an alcoholic dad, Fryer became the youngest black professor to ever secure tenure at Harvard and won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal, the prize for the best economist under 40 in the world.

Fryer’s research routinely upended the woke orthodoxies dominating academia. But not on purpose; Fryer isn’t partisan. He’s only interested in digging up truth, no matter what it is. Truth, he says, is the key tool for improving the lives of black boys and girls.

Then, in 2018, Fryer’s career was suddenly cut short. Harvard had an official line on why: he’d sexually harassed his staff. Fryer was banned from campus and his multi-million dollar lab was shut down. The few legacy media outlets that did cover the case, such as the New York Times, dutifully repeated the university’s narrative: this punishment was overdue MeToo justice.

No, it wasn’t. Drawing on previously unreported documents and interviews with dozens of Fryer’s friends and colleagues, we reveal his cancellation for what it was: an ideological purge.

Watch the whole gripping thing (about 25 minutes) and please pass it on.


Ukraine and the RINO Delusion

Thanks largely to corporate media and GOP saber-rattling that make him look prudent by contrast, Joe Biden has arrested his freefall in the polls which cite his Ukraine policy. 

By Brian Robertson at American Greatness:

March 22, 2022

“We have two parties… One is the Evil Party and the other is the Stupid Party… Occasionally the two parties get together to do something that’s both evil and stupid. That’s called bipartisanship.”
— M. Stanton Evans

The Stupid Party strikes again.

Just one short month ago, Republican leaders and strategists were salivating over the prospect of a GOP blowout in the approaching midterms, as Joe Biden lurched from disaster to disaster. The debacle of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, raging inflation, an uncontrolled invasion at the southern border, crushing vaccine and mask mandates, and the utter failure to control COVID as promised all contributed to an apparent death spiral in the polls for Biden. With even mainstream media outlets acknowledging that the president’s polling numbers had rapidly cratered to unprecedented lows (with no bottom in sight) only one year into a new administration, it appeared that all Republicans needed to do to win big in November was to stay out of the way while the Democrats self-destructed.

But one can never underestimate the insularity and obtuseness of the Washington GOP establishment, whose sensitivity is exclusively attuned to the interests of their donor class rather than to the interests of their voting base, or even the national interest. 

It’s become rather standard in conservative commentary to deride Republicans who “betray conservative principles” on some issue or other as RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). That term of opprobrium fails to capture the reality, which is that fealty to the interests of the Washington Uniparty (otherwise known as the Party of Davos and the War Party) is actually the norm rather than the exception among Republican officeholders, especially for those in positions of leadership. When the Democratic Party and corporate media change the narrative, they simply can’t seem to resist—following along like lemmings.

In retrospect, the administration’s desperate attempt to shift the narrative clearly began on January 6, when U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ordered the accelerated release of an estimated 450,000 pages of Pfizer documents regarding the COVID vaccine trials they had conducted prior to preliminary FDA emergency use authorization of the vaccine in December 2020.

Soon after, attorney Thomas Renz dropped a bombshell in congressional testimony that was completely ignored by the corporate media: Data sets recently provided to him by three Department of Defense whistleblowers showed astronomical increases in serious heart issues, nervous system disorders, cancers, infertility, and other grave health issues among military personnel (who are subject to strict vaccine mandates) in 2021 when compared to the average for the five previous years. When Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) followed up with a formal inquiry to the Defense Department, the Pentagon rescinded the data and claimed that the apparent spikes in serious health issues were due to clerical errors. 

Simultaneous with these ominous developments, Dr. Anthony Fauci, omnipresent in all the major media outlets for the last two years as official mouthpiece on all things COVID, began withdrawing from public view. His public schedule advertising upcoming media appearances suddenly disappeared from the website of the National Institutes of Health. Mask mandates, and even vaccine mandates, were quietly withdrawn by many states in a seeming coordinated effort, many clearly unrelated to current rates of COVID infection at the state and local level.

Some speculated that the rollbacks of state mandates were the result of disastrous internal polling data Democratic consultants were seeing confirming the unpopularity of those policies. But there was clearly more to it than that.

The coordinated effort to downplay COVID emergency messaging (while quietly renewing the public health emergency and the related “emergency powers” on January 14) was concurrent with an orchestrated ratcheting up of rhetoric about the looming Russian threat to Ukraine. As Vladimir Putin amassed forces on the Ukrainian border in reaction to an escalation of demands that Ukraine should be made part of the NATO alliance, the Biden Administration sent Vice President Kamala Harris to Europe to explain the U.S. position and ostensibly to de-escalate tensions. Harris took the opportunity to egg on Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s provocative demands for NATO membership, demands that Putin had long insisted were intolerable from Russia’s perspective. As her audience at the Munich Security Conference listened slack-jawed, the vice president declared, “I appreciate and admire President Zelenskyy’s desire to join NATO.” With any chance at de-escalation scuttled, Putin invaded less than a week later. This appeared to be the desired outcome.

Instead of seeing the trap and calling out Biden for failing to avert an entirely predictable military confrontation with a major nuclear power by means of wise diplomacy, Republicans seem determined to demonstrate even greater recklessness in escalating a conflict that could only have the severest of detrimental consequences for both their constituents and for the United States geostrategically. 

The problem, apparently, was not the imprudent egging on of the confrontational behavior of a client state created by the color-revolution coup orchestrated by the Obama Administration in 2014. Rather, it was that the Biden Administration was not escalating the conflict quickly enough. Calls for declaring a “no-fly zone” (a.k.a. declaring an air war against Russia), assassinating Putin, and destroying the Russian economy grew in intensity, and these critiques driving the Biden Administration into a more confrontational stance were coming primarily

from the Republican side of the aisle.

Given a blank check by their ostensible political opposition to turn the page from their own domestic disasters and to demonize Putin and Russia as the source not only of a potentially catastrophic military conflict abroad but also soaring prices at home, the White House wasted no time in pivoting to the “blame Putin” theme. When confronted with uncomfortable questions about energy prices going through the roof, however ludicrous the explanation was to anyone paying attention over the last 15 months of runaway federal spending and massive expansion of the money supply by the Federal Reserve, the mantra is that we should blame Putin. “I can’t do much at the moment,” Biden responded to a reporter’s question on soaring prices at the pump just two weeks after Putin’s Ukraine invasion. “Russia is responsible.”

Their bellicose stance ensured that Republicans were not in a position (even if they had the inclination) to push back against that ridiculous narrative. Given their complicity in both the unprecedented deficit spending of the last year and their crucial role in pushing the administration further in the direction of an all-out economic and military conflict with Russia, ostensibly aimed at toppling Putin from power, how could Republicans call him out for goading Russia now? 

Evidently, the political temptation to engage in moral posturing by criticizing Biden for not doing enough to support the beleaguered Ukrainians (whose plight was being depicted around the clock, with lockstep messaging, by the corporate news outlets) overpowered any inclination to weigh in on the side of caution and hard-headed national interest. In the process, they managed to ignore the guaranteed devastating economic consequences for the United States and for their constituents that would surely result from the measures they were advocating. 

Severing the Russian government (and the Russian population) from the global banking system would, of course, result in the Russians turning to China’s financial institutions. A U.S. ban on Russian oil and gas would, of course, accelerate the skyrocketing prices at the pump for American consumers, while doing nothing to restrict Putin’s ability to sell his oil elsewhere since oil and gas is a competitive world market. Various other sanctions would hurt the Russian people, but do nothing to harm Putin’s regime or defund a military adventure bankrolled by oil income. (Indeed, as the perception has grown that the U.S. government is targeting the Russian people for punishment, Putin’s popularity at home has only grown.) 

Russia certainly has enough market leverage to take countermeasures, as they demonstrated with the recently announced embargo on fertilizer sales to the United States—which will throw fuel on the fire of exploding food prices. But the fact that such measures would inflict a much greater degree of harm on consumers here at home than they would on the Putin regime was less important to the Republican saber rattlers than exploiting another opportunity to play Winston Churchill and, absurdly, call Biden out as a Putin appeaser. 

The fact is that the consistent Republican support since the State Department-sponsored coup in 2014 for heavily arming and goading on the provocative behavior of the client Zelenskyy regime (particularly in threatening Russian dominance of Crimea) meant they were hardly in a position to counsel prudence and de-escalation in the name of America’s vital national interests when the inevitable crisis came. And indeed, most Republican members, up to and including those in leadership, have been far more belligerent than Democrats in their calls for escalation, with over 40 GOP Senators signing on serial draft dodger Mitt Romney’s letter insisting that the Biden Administration send MiG fighter jets to the Ukrainians to fight a surrogate air war with the Russians. 

It’s quite telling that, with a handful of exceptions, Republicans closely identified with the America First movement, including Senators Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and John Kennedy (R-La.), have joined the swelling chorus of voices calling for escalation and more robust support of the sainted Zelenskyy, a George Soros disciple deeply committed to the entire woke internationalist agenda. The ironies are innumerable. 

Insisting on the priority of maintaining the sacred borders of a leftist, internationalist regime in Eastern Europe that has notoriously served as a piggy bank for the corrupt Biden family and the Clinton Foundation over the past decade would not appear to be high on the agenda for anyone placing America’s interests first. 

For politicians who have long questioned the wisdom of ignoring America’s problems at home while spending America’s blood and treasure on failed regime-change strategies in the Middle East to suddenly regard regime change as a viable approach with nuclear-armed Russia is rather astounding. For them to prioritize military aid to Ukraine to the extent that they rush passage of a ruinous $1.3 billion deficit spending bill in the middle of the night because of the purported urgency of coming to the to aid of “democracy” (in the form of one of the most corrupt governments in the world) boggles the mind. For them to do so in the midst of an uncontrolled invasion of the United States at our southern border, orchestrated by the party in power in order to supplant their domestic political opponents (i.e., Republican voters) betrays a death wish.

The chickens are already coming home to roost for the American people as a result of the War Party’s crazed crusade for regime change in Russia. Consumers are already feeling the pinch at the pump and at the grocery store, and sanctions against Russia just poured fuel on that already blazing fire. The longer-term geostrategic consequences of such a shortsighted policy are even worse, and are beginning to play out in the form of a solidifying Sino-Russian alliance against the United States. Major players like Saudi Arabia and India are already cutting deals with Beijing that portend the impending death of the Petrodollar. 

If Americans are already feeling considerable pain now as the result of Washington’s hyperinflationary policies, just wait until they find out that their relative affluence in the post-industrial United States was almost entirely based on the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency. It is almost baked in at this point that things will get exceedingly ugly for ordinary Americans before the end of the year. We will be lucky to avoid food shortages and civil unrest the likes of which have not been seen since the Great Depression

Already, Biden seems to have arrested his free fall in the polls, with relatively high marks on his handling of the Ukraine crisis (thanks largely to corporate media and GOP saber rattling that make him look prudent by contrast). And what, exactly, will Republicans say about the deteriorating, and perhaps grave, economic situation come the midterms in November? At this juncture, they can hardly pin the blame entirely on Biden for this dramatic shift in our nation’s economic fortunes. Try as they might to evade responsibility, the Biden economy has now inevitably become the Ukraine war economy. And this time, it will be impossible to blame only Biden and the so-called “RINOs” for the outcome, when so many of those who habitually employ that condemnatory phrase have themselves been eager collaborators.

About Brian Robertson

Brian Robertson is a writer living in Maryland.


Schrödinger’s Woman

“I’m struggling to see why, when asked to define a woman, Ketanji Brown Jackson didn’t just say, “well, I am one.” I understand that Jackson knows that the party that nominated her has gone utterly insane in this area. But, as she must know, that party is also happily lionizing her for her sex. It is true that Jackson is not a “biologist,” but neither is Joe Biden, and yet, having announced that he wanted a female Supreme Court nominee, he seemed to be able to identify one without too much trouble.

“Once again, the Democrats are having it both ways on this silliest of all obsessions. One can only suspect that the party will suddenly remember what a woman is if, in a few months, the Court overturns Roe.”

Dr. Milton Wolf@MiltonWolfMD

I would’ve liked to hear Sen. Blackburn follow up the woman question to KBJ. It’s not too late, senators. Here you go:

If only a biologist can define a woman, are you saying womanhood is defined biologically?

Are you a woman? How do you know?

Do you meet Joe Biden’s stated qualifications; are you a black woman?

If you don’t know what a woman is, how can you treat them fairly from the bench?

If you cannot define a simple word that grade school children know, how can you understand the complexities of law?

How can you sit in judgment of anyone if you don’t even have the simple knowledge base to know if they are a man or a woman?

(Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

Resistance is rising to woke colleges’ race and sex discrimination Who Illegally Exclude Boys And Men!

Resistance is rising to woke colleges’ race and sex discrimination

By Glenn H. Reynolds at the New York Post: March 24, 2022

People used to talk about “resistance” to President Donald Trump. That’s old hat. Now it’s resistance to the woke.

And we’re seeing more and more of that resistance. University of Michigan economics professor Mark J. Perry is working with numerous folks across the nation to file equal-opportunity complaints with the federal Department of Education when colleges and universities discriminate on the basis of race and sex.

Perry recounts that in three years of research, he’s found more than 1,200 Title IX and Title VI violations — and continues to uncover more. “The significant and troubling frequency of violations of federal civil rights laws in higher education demonstrates unaddressed systemic sexism and racism that needs greater awareness, exposure and legal challenges,” he writes.

“Typical and frequent” Title IX violations “that have gone unchallenged for many decades,” he says, include “female-only scholarships, fellowships, awards, study spaces, mentoring, tutoring, special freshman orientations, industry meetings, summer STEM programs, summer STEM camps, coding clubs, leadership programs, entrepreneurship programs, gym hours, etc. that operate exclusively for women while illegally excluding and discriminating against boys and men.”

Perry says that “racially segregated or racially preferential” programs and events that violate Title VI have also “become increasingly common in higher education.”

So far, he reports, the federal government has opened 218 investigations against offending schools, and 133 have been resolved in his favor. More are on the way. And even the schools that escape punishment may think twice before doing this sort of thing again.

Perry, by the way, invites people to contact him if they’d like help filing their own complaints.

Professors are suing, too. With help from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Michael Phillips, a historian at Texas’ Collin College, is suing his employer for trying to discipline him over Facebook posts critical of university policy. He’s the third Collin College professor to sue over what he calls an “atmosphere of terror.”

The proper response to an atmosphere of terror is, of course, to stand up to it. And he is.

And the American Civil Rights Project forced Coca-Cola’s general counsel’s office to stop an openly discriminatory and illegal program of racial quotas. Coke had said it would only hire outside law firms that met its standards for racial makeup. Law firms doing business with Coke were supposed to present quarterly reports on the racial background of the attorneys doing Coke’s legal work — and risk losing the account if the numbers didn’t reach the quotas.

This was clearly illegal race discrimination barred by 42 US Code Section 1981 as well as other anti-discrimination laws. As the ACR Project’s Dan Morenoff put it, “It’s amazing that neither the general counsel of a large corporation like Coke, nor the large, prominent law firms the policy involved, seem to have considered its direct conflict with American civil rights laws. It’s even more amazing that so many other sophisticated American corporations have similarly disregarded obvious legal problems to adopt comparably ‘woke’ policies.”

After pressure from ACR, Coke backed down and ended the program (after claiming the loudly proclaimed policy was never really policy at all). Now ACR is writing other major corporations with similar policies — Starbucks, McDonald’s and Novartis AB — demanding that they stop the illegal discrimination too. The group is also in negotiations with Lowe’s Companies about illegal racial preferences in promotion.

Meanwhile, Nathaniel Hiers, who was fired over his criticisms of the University of North Texas’ “microaggressions” policy, is suing and won an important victory when a US District Court held that university officials could be made personally liable for the firing. They should have known that firing a professor for his speech on issues of public concern was a First Amendment violation and thus won’t be allowed to claim “good faith” immunity. A few months ago, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit found University of Iowa officials personally liable for discriminating against a student religious group on similar grounds. 

More lawsuits and administrative complaints are likely on the way, with similar outcomes: There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit there. Most corporate and academic officials seem to think the law doesn’t apply so long as they’re politically correct. Time for them to learn otherwise.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a professor of law at the University of Tennessee and founder of the InstaPundit.com blog.

“CBP officials are confident Title 42 is ending soon.”

Sens. Sinema and Kelly warn Biden administration not to end Title 42 without a plan

by JOHN SEXTON Mar 25, 2022 at HotAir:

As if the Biden administration didn’t have enough problems on its plate, we’re about to see another spring surge at the border. This one could be significantly worse than the “challenge” the administration was facing last year, which you may remember set a record for border encounters.

As Karen pointed out this morning, DHS has started a mass release of migrants under what it calls “humanitarian parole.” The timing of this is not accidental. For one thing, it appears the usual seasonal surge has already begun:

According to preliminary U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data obtained by The Washington Post, authorities are on pace to make more than 200,000 detentions along the Mexican border in March, the highest monthly total since August.

Here’s the chart showing the current numbers not including March (we likely won’t get March numbers for 2 more weeks) which are represented by that light orange line at the top. As you can see a figure of more than 200,000 this month would surpass all but the very peak of the surge last year.

And that’s how things look now assuming nothing else changes. But it’s increasingly likely that something else will change. Title 42 allows the border patrol to expel migrants on public health grounds and, since it was put in place in March 2020, about 1.7 million migrants have been expelled on that basis. But the Biden administration is under pressure to end Title 42. They considered ending it last year and reviewed that decision again in January. The next review is set for next week and with the number of coronavirus cases down sharply, a justification for extending it could be hard to come by:

COVID-19 rates are plunging among migrants crossing the border from Mexico as the Biden administration faces a Tuesday deadline to end or extend sweeping restrictions on asylum aimed at limiting the coronavirus’ spread. Lower infection rates raise more questions about the scientific justification for a public health order that has caused migrants to be expelled from the U.S. more than 1.7 million times since March 2020 without a chance to request asylum…

As mask mandates have lifted, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is under mounting pressure to fully restore asylum by ending the Title 42 order, named for a 1944 public health law. Critics say it has been an excuse to wriggle out of asylum obligations under U.S. law and international treaty.

The Washington Examiner reported Wednesday that CBP officials are confident Title 42 is ending soon.

Three senior Customs and Border Protection officials and a Border Patrol union leader told the Washington Examiner that the expectation at the agency is that CDC will choose not to renew Title 42 when it expires on April 20 and that the CBP is preparing to announce plans for handling the change before then…

“I’m certain the decision has been made by CDC and talks are taking place between agencies to figure out how to announce it and be prepared for the further invasion on the [southwest] border,” a senior CBP official wrote in a text on Wednesday, referencing internal discussions at the agency.

So, to sum this up a bit, the number of migrants arriving at the border this month is going to be near the peak we saw last summer and now it looks like the administration is also about to end Title 42 which is why, as the Post reported yesterday, “authorities are bracing for a ‘mass migration event.’”

Once word goes out that no one is being turned away under Title 42 anymore there’s really no telling what this could look like in a couple of months. Recall that last year we were using convention centers, military bases and other impromptu facilities around the country as temporary HHS holding facilities because the usual border facilities were overrun.

And that’s why Sens. Sinema and Kelly of Arizona sent a letter yesterday, urging the Biden administration not to end Title 42 with a clear plan to deal with what happens next.

We write to you to express great concern about the lack of a specific plan from your Administration with respect to potential changes to the Title 42 Public Health authority, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has relied on at the border during the coronavirus pandemic. Given the impacts that changes to Title 42 could have on border communities, border security, and migrants, we urge your Administration not to make any changes to Title 42 implementation until you are completely ready to execute and coordinate a comprehensive plan that ensures a secure, orderly, and humane process at the border. We also request that you provide a full briefing to Congress on your plan before implementation and execution…

Last month alone, CBP expelled 91,513 migrants under Title 42, and processed 73,460 individuals under Title 8.1 The January figures are comparable, showing only a slight trend upward on the number of expulsions. Of those encounters, nearly thirty percent occurred in Arizona.2 A sharp end to Title 42 without a comprehensive plan in motion would significantly increase the strain on DHS, border communities, and local nonprofits that are already near or at capacity.

With a real crisis on the horizon, the Senators from Arizona want to see the Biden administration’s homework before we step off the cliff. And that implies that, as far they know now, there is no plan in place. My own speculation is that the administration has some sort of plan in mind but isn’t revealing it because the details would attract a lot of media attention to a situation the White House would rather not have the media focus on. They might not have a choice about that for much longer.

Allahpundit-style exit question: In light of this looming crisis, will President Biden finally make a visit to the border? Or will the White House continue to claim his 2008 drive-by counts?



March 25, 2022

Ketanji Brown Jackson is a Trojan Horse

By Anony Mee at American Thinker:

For crying out loud, it’s 2022 and, in the federal government women are still being promoted based on their looks rather than their qualifications for the job. And by POTUS no less! Well, Biden is just a derivative iteration of Harvey Weinstein.

Around twenty years ago, he twice participated in filibustering (Black, female) Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s nomination to the U.S. Court of Appeals. She finally was approved in 2005. Then, Biden advised President Bush that if he dared to nominate Brown to the Supreme Court, he would filibuster her again and prevail. At the same time, Democrats also filibustered a Hispanic male judge, two other female judges, and a male judge of Lebanese descent, among others. How very diverse, inclusive, and equitatious of them.

However, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson does have several attributes in common with the President. For one, she’s got a lousy memory. Indeed, it was Senator Cruz’s careful and repetitious questioning, that helped her to recall quite a few things about herself that she had previously forgotten. Such a lack of self-awareness from one who anticipates setting precedent is disturbing.

She did independently recall “staring at the image on the cover [of Derrick Bell’s book Faces At The Bottom Of The Well] when I was growing up.” She must have been a very late bloomer. That book was first published when she was a senior at Harvard.

Judge Brown is no scholar. She’s a graduate of Harvard and Harvard Law, yet couldn’t recall the core arguments in the pivotal Dred Scott case. How does she expect to converse intelligently with thoroughly prepared lawyers regarding precedent and relevance in cases that will appear before her in the Supreme Court?

She was unable to respond intelligently regarding the near-total recidivism rates of pedophiles and sexual offenders. She’s overseen so many of these cases, yet is unfamiliar with the literature? Has she no curiosity regarding common subjects in her courtroom? Is she not driven to be the best possible judge she can be?

In common with the Vice President, she seems to have no familiarity, or, at least, no opinion on or understanding she was willing to state, with the visceral legal topics of our times. What is a woman? When does life begin? Her flip answers cause this author to wonder how shallow is her thinking?

Her understanding of constitutional principles is weak. And her language usage is sloppy and casual. Free speech is allowed? Allowed??? Free speech is. Period. It is Congress and, by extension the government, that is not allowed to interfere with the exercise of the unalienable right of citizens to freely speak and thus exercise the foundation of their liberty.

Judge Brown has been overturned enough times now to confirm that both her judgment and constitutional expertise are lacking. She is out of step with the common federal judiciary understanding of the law and its bases, precedents, and exceptions. Again, she’s not paying attention. And she’s certainly no RBG.

Image: Ketanji Brown Jackson. Twitter screen grab.

So, what is she doing being nominated to the highest court in the land? She wasn’t President Obama’s selectee when he had the chance to make history. But perhaps he didn’t want to seem race-obsessed. Oh, sorry, who am I kidding?

Where IS Congress These Days?


Down with the Senate theater kids

Make Supreme Court hearings dull again

March 24, 2022 Written by: Matt McDonald at the Spectator:

Many failed actors work as waitstaff, or move back in with their parents. Some spiral into heroin addiction, prostitution or death. But it could be worse: a number end up in the United States Senate.

This week, the Senate Judiciary Committee lent further credence to my long-held belief that anyone who declares an interest in running for political office should be committed to an asylum. The hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson bore closer resemblance to a remedial acting class than the inner democratic workings of a somewhat serious country.

The right have been gorging on the clip of Democratic presidential hopeful Cory Booker giving it the full Olivier in his remarks to the judge. The flamboyant senator gesticulates wildly as he breathily orates about Langston Hughes, LGBTQ Americans and hidden figures, bringing Jackson to tears.


But frankly, the Republicans on the Committee haven’t been much better. Republican presidential hopeful Ted Cruz — see the pattern? — waved a copy of Antiracist Baby around and got into bickering matches with his colleagues… then searched for his own name on Twitter right after.

(Cruz, in fact, has been hamming it up for the cameras for decades, as evidenced by this clip of him in high school describing his aspirations as wanting to “be in a teen tit film like that guy who played Horatio” and “take over the world, rule everything, rich, powerful, that sort of stuff.”)

And Cruz’s colleague Lindsey Graham, who too ran for the White House in 2016, threw a temper tantrum about Guantanamo detainees in the Afghan government before storming out of the hearing.

Judge Jackson’s answers have made significantly fewer waves than the questions and the questioners — most of whom seem to be angling to cut a clip for their next campaign ad.

The drama has unfolded in a similar fashion to the recent Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett hearings — though frankly you can trace the theatrics back as far as Ted Kennedy’s scything of Robert Bork back in the Eighties. It also follows what McKay Coppins identified as the Newt Gingrich blueprint: in the Nineties, the House Speaker “recognized an opportunity in the newly installed C-Span cameras, and began delivering tirades against Democrats to an empty chamber, knowing that his remarks would be beamed to viewers across the country.”

Televising what should be a dull procedural job interview can have dangerous consequences: arguably, the calamity of Kamala Harris’s vice presidency has its roots in the public profile she cultivated on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Politics is already show business for ugly people. The search for viral moments in government proceedings is deepening this further, meaning that — yes, even more so than now — the halls of Congress will be staffed by attention-starved, status-driven egomaniacs who will drive the greatest democracy to ever exist into ruin.

Senator Ben Sasse acknowledged this in Wednesday’s hearings, when the topic of TV cameras in the Supreme Court came up. “”Cameras change human behavior,” Sasse continued. “I think we should recognize that the jackassery we often see around here is partly because of people mugging for short-term camera opportunities,” the Nebraska Republican said. In a soothing moment of bipartisanship, his Democratic colleague, Vermont senator Patrick Leahy, agreed, when he chided Cruz: “I know the junior senator from Texas likes to be on television. But most of us…like to follow the rules.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee should play host to candidates who treat justice seriously and soberly — not failed theater kids desperately seeking the spotlight.

The Biden Habit Of 40 Years In Politics!

 MARCH 24, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Some say that Joe Biden’s mental capacity is so diminished that he can’t be held responsible for his actions, but I disagree. Even in his current state, he should be capable of a basic level of honesty and good faith. But that is a low bar that Biden can’t get over.

The latest case in point: earlier today, in Brussels, Biden repeated the notorious lie that his predecessor, President Trump, praised the pathetic handful of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, Virginia, as “very good people.” This is a canard that Biden has repeated over and over, even though it has been thoroughly debunked. What Trump said was that there were “very fine people” among the peaceful demonstrators on both sides of the Charlottesville statue controversy. He condemned the neo-Nazis unreservedly.

This is how Biden told the lie to our NATO allies:

I had no intention of running for president again, until I saw those folks coming out of the fields in Virginia carrying torches and carrying Nazi banners, and literally singing the same vile rhyme they used in Germany in the early twenties, or thirties I should say, and then the gentleman you mentioned [Trump] was asked what he thought and a young woman was killed, a protester, and he was asked what he thought, he said there were “very good people” on both sides. And that’s when I decided I wasn’t going to be quiet any longer.

Telling this kind of lie is contemptible under any circumstances. Telling it about his predecessor in office while speaking to representatives of important allies is not just contemptible but damaging to our country’s interests. Biden deserves the severest condemnation, and he shouldn’t be let off the hook on the ground of diminished capacity.

More at the link.

Criminals Adding Criminals!?

Boston shocked – SHOCKED – to find more crime in schools after they ditched their police

by JAZZ SHAW Mar 24, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

(Colorado State University campus police via AP)

In December of 2020, Massachusetts passed its “Police Reform Law” in response to BLM protests and calls to “abolish the police.” The law would have required school police officers to undergo 350 hours of very expensive, specialized training in order to keep their positions in their school districts. Almost all of the schools in the Boston School District chose to instead cut their cops loose and replace them with “school safety specialists” who don’t carry handcuffs or firearms and who do not have the authority to arrest students. This left teachers and administrators with no choice other than calling 911 when trouble broke out.

To the great surprise of many of the activists pushing for “police reform” (but really not to anyone else with an IQ above room temperature) incidents of many sorts of crime in the city’s public schools began to rise almost immediately. That trend continued throughout 2021 and it’s still being seen today. Most of the incidents involved fighting and assaults, but there were even instances of guns showing up in schools and sexual assaults. Now the city is facing a thorny question as to whether or not to bring the police back on campus. (Boston Globe)

With no school-employed officers, it has fallen on regular police and the city’s school police unit to handle emergencies at schools in the neighborhoods they patrol. Between the first day of school and Thanksgiving break, the most recent 911 call data available from Boston Public Schools, police responded to 177 incidents at 62 schools across the city.

More than one-quarter of the 911 calls were for incidents involving fighting or assault. And these emergency calls represent only the most serious issues. Teachers, deans, and school safety specialists reported more than 4,000 other incidents to school administrators from September through November, which can range from disrupting class to cutting school or trespassing.

During the entire 2019-2020 school year, there were 951 recorded incidents where campus police had to intervene. Thus far in the 2021-2022 school year, there have been nearly 800 already with several months to go. And officials interviewed for this report believe the number could be much higher because not all incidents wind up being recorded in the school’s recordkeeping system like they were when campus police had to document everything in the school’s system.

Can anyone honestly say they are surprised by these results? Public schools, particularly in urban area high schools, always have some number of kids that are going to cause trouble. Also, gangs regularly recruit high school students and groom them for a life of criminal activities. Those kids will be the most likely to cause trouble, assuming they show up for class at all.

When there is an officer hanging around posing the possibility of an armed response and some time in juvenile hall, the bad apples are less likely to act out. When the only responsible adult in the area is a “safety specialist” with a clipboard, the incentive to hold back on their poor impulses is greatly diminished. In fact, you’re probably putting the safety specialist in danger of becoming another victim of assault.

Did the schools really need this to be pointed out to them? Shouldn’t anyone with an ounce of common sense have already known that this would happen? If parents and teachers have questions about this dangerous trend, they should be taking those questions directly to their woke legislators who passed the “Police Reform Law” in the first place. In cities across the country, we’ve seen over and over again what happens when you try to defund or abolish the police. And it hasn’t been a pretty picture. Perhaps the families in and around Boston can keep this in mind when they go to the polls this November.

God Bless Donald J. Trump!

MARCH 24, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Today Donald Trump sued the perpetrators of the Russia collusion hoax in the federal court for the Southern District of Florida. The Complaint is here. Trump sued the whole cast of characters: Hillary R. Clinton, HFACC, Inc., the Democratic National Committee, DNC Services Corporation, Perkins Coie, LLC, Michael Sussmann, Marc Elias, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Charles Halliday Dolan, Jr., Jake Sullivan, John Podesta, Robert E. Mook, Phillipe Reines, Fusion GPS, Glenn Simpson, Peter Fritsch, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, Orbis Business Intelligence, Ltd., Christopher Steele, Igor Danchenko, Neustar, Inc., Rodney Joffe, James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Kevin Clinesmith, Andrew McCabe, and a number of John Does.

From a quick review of the Complaint, which is 108 pages long, it does a good job of summarizing the story that most people know pretty well by now. I was mostly interested in three aspects of the Complaint: the venue, the causes of action, and Trump’s lawyers.

The venue, South Florida, should be favorable to Trump, depending on the luck of the judge draw.

As for causes of action, these defendants obviously wronged Trump in a variety of ways, but there are serious questions about what claims he should assert. In fact, the Complaint includes various claims, each of which is asserted against a subset of the defendants. Some of the causes of action are accompanied by separate conspiracy counts. The principal counts include RICO, a cause of action I am not crazy about; “injurious falsehood,” i.e. defamation; malicious prosecution; violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; theft of trade secrets; violation of the Stored Communications Act; “agency,” against Hillary Clinton; and a number of vicarious liability counts. The Complaint alleges that the defendants’ wrongful conduct is ongoing, and requests money damages.

Is there a winning theory in there somewhere? The defamation count best captures the nature of the defendants’ conspiracy. I’m guessing most of the others won’t go far.

What I was most curious to see, is who is representing Trump. Trump has poor taste in lawyers, and in any event I doubt that any major law firm would represent him in a case of this sort, either because of law firms’ commitment to leftism or from fear of the vicious attacks that liberals would unleash. Trump has local counsel in Deerfield Beach, Florida, and it appears that his principal firm will be Habba Madaio & Associates, which has at most five lawyers and is located in New Jersey. The Habba firm represents Trump in his lawsuit against his niece Mary and the New York Times. The firm does not have a big-time litigation practice.

I don’t want to impugn lawyers whom I have never met, and I appreciate the Habba firm’s courage in being willing to represent Trump. But there is no possible way they have the resources to prosecute this case successfully. They sued 29 individuals and companies; I don’t know how many will actually hire counsel, but Trump’s lawyers will be massively outnumbered and outgunned. Much as I would love to see Trump win this case, it is hard to foresee a happy ending.

The worst outcome, of course, is that the lawsuit fails and its failure is taken to imply that there never was a Russia collusion hoax or conspiracy. It could be much like the hopeless litigation that Trump and others undertook after the 2020 election. Those cases never could have succeeded, but their failure–rarely or never on the merits–has widely been taken to discredit claims of voter fraud, some of which were undoubtedly meritorious.

In principle I applaud Trump for going after the people who conspired against him for years and ultimately did bring him down, but I think the charge of the Light Brigade had better odds of success.