• 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

“These latest revelations indicate how far gone in Democratic Party politics the agency is”.

MARCH 30, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Perhaps the most damaging of all “anti-covid” measures over the last two years were the public school closures. Children fell behind academically and socially, and multiple studies have documented serious mental health issues in a large number of children. Meanwhile, the data indisputably showed that schools were not a significant source of covid transmission, and covid is virtually harmless to children.

How did this public policy disaster come about? A just-released report by Republicans on the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Crisis suggests that the cause was inappropriate and perhaps unprecedented influence on the Centers for Disease Control exerted by the teachers’ unions, specifically the American Federation for Teachers.

Sworn testimony by Dr. Henry Walke, a career CDC scientist, indicated that CDC largely gave editorial control over its “guidance” on public school re-openings to AFT.

Documents and testimony show, contrary to the CDC’s long-standing practice of keeping draft guidance documents confidential, senior agency officials shared a draft copy of the Operational Strategy with the American Federation for Teachers (AFT) a political union with no scientific expertise but an extensive record of support for the Biden campaign. After reviewing the draft, AFT staff asked CDC Director Rochelle Walensky to install a “trigger” in the guidance that would cause schools to close automatically if COVID-19 positivity rates reached a certain threshold [Ed.: A ridiculously low covid positivity rate of three percent]. The CDC obliged, and thousands of schools across the country remained closed throughout the 2020-2021 school year.

The committee obtained emails between CDC and the AFT in which CDC gave AFT an advance look at its proposed school re-opening guidance in draft form. The testimony indicated that this in itself was unusual. Worse, the teachers’ union was allowed to suggest edits in the guidance that in more than one instance were adopted virtually word for word. CDC Director Rochelle Walensky tried to mislead the House committee about AFT’s role:

The documents show the CDC was not merely providing the Operational Strategy to AFT as a courtesy to an “end user,” as Director Walensky indicated. In fact, the documents show the White House and CDC staff engaged in extensive discussions with AFT’s senior leadership about the contents of the draft guidance and indicated a willingness to accept near verbatim edits to the Operational Strategy.

The committee minority’s report includes side by side texts, showing the changes proposed by AFT and the document as it emerged in final form, adopting the AFT’s language nearly word for word.

The teachers’ unions are the number one source of support for the Democratic Party and the most powerful political entities in the U.S. How unusual is it for political players like AFT to be given this kind of influence in formulating “scientific” guidance from the CDC? My guess is that it is unprecedented, but Dr. Walke was prevented from answering such questions by Biden administration lawyers:

RepublicanCounsel. So, if [incorporating line-by-line edits] is so uncommon, why did it happen with the American Federation of Teachers?

BidenAdministration Counsel. I’m going to instruct Dr. Walke not to answer that question.

I would be curious to know on what basis that instruction was given by the Biden administration. I don’t see any recognized privilege that could apply. It looks like pure obstructionism arising from the fact that the administration does not want voters to know that it devastated the futures of millions of American children at the behest of its political masters, the teachers’ unions.

The Centers for Disease Control is not a scientific agency, it is a political bureaucracy. That fact has become painfully evident throughout the covid fiasco. These latest revelations indicate how far gone in Democratic Party politics the agency is.


March 31, 2022

Were You Better Off with Trump?

By J.B. Shurk at American Thinker:

In the final days before what appeared to be a neck-and-neck 1980 election, Republican Ronald Reagan landed a haymaker against President Carter by asking a simple question: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  Americans were not, and Reagan ended up beating the incumbent Democrat in a drubbing — carrying forty-four states, taking 489 electoral votes, and winning the popular vote by nearly ten percent.  Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan — Make America Great Again! — will be remembered as one of the most effective rallying calls in political history.  As we near what looks like his return to battle for the 2024 election, though, a potent six-word slogan reminiscent of Reagan’s rhetorical thwack is inescapable: Were you better off with Trump?

Only one incumbent president before Trump ever won significantly more votes on the way to losing re-election.  That president, Grover Cleveland, left office in 1889 amid allegations that fraudulent balloting in several states had secured his opponent Benjamin Harrison’s victory, and four years later, President Cleveland returned to the White House after decisively defeating Harrison in a rematch.  The 22nd and 24th president of the United States is the only man to serve two non-consecutive terms.  If that changes in 2024, it will reflect the fact that, as with Cleveland, President Trump did remarkably better with the electorate the second time around, only to be handed his walking papers.  

On paper, nothing about Trump’s performance looked like anything other than a win.  Losing an election looks like the Romney/Ryan debacle in 2012, in which Obama actually lost five million votes from his 2008 haul but still defeated the unelectable Republican duds.  Trump, on the other hand, won more votes than any sitting president in U.S. history and took in roughly fifteen million more votes than Bush, McCain, or Romney could ever muster.  He won over ten million more voters than in his previous 2016 victory, won almost every traditional bellwether county in the country by double digits, and expanded his share of the electorate with women and minorities.  But for Biden being declared the winner by the press after four days of counting in a handful of battleground states, Trump’s impressive gains in 2020 would have been heralded as a resounding endorsement from the American people.

That is the part of the 2020 election story that has always bothered me most.  If it were stolen, and I obviously believe it was (sorry, thought police), then the theft not only denied the American people their say in their own governance and saddled the country with a dangerous, corrupt, and cognitively declining stooge, but also unfairly recast widely successful Trump policies as having been rejected by the people.  That rewriting of history is as dangerous and consequential as the election fraud itself.  

In tort law, there’s a doctrine known as res ipsa loquitur — “the thing speaks for itself” — which permits the inference of a negligent act even without direct evidence because no other plausible explanation exists.  The thing speaks for itself is how I’ve felt about the 2020 election.  Although I have been told ad nauseam by America’s esteemed Expert Class that the last election was the most honestly conducted exercise in “democracy” to grace our shores, I still don’t see anything but a brazen robbery conducted in broad daylight and covered up by a conspiracy of corporate news factories peddling falsehoods, state attorneys general and secretaries of state overlooking election lawbreaking, state and federal judges shutting down timely investigations, and a national Uniparty enthusiastically giving its stamp of approval for the whole sordid affair. 

Time Magazine admitted as much in its post-election boasting that “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information,” conspired to manipulate the election’s outcome, as set forth in its detailed exposé hubristically titled “The Secret History of the Shadow Campaign That Saved the 2020 Election.”  That kind of blunt testimony certainly speaks for itself, as does the New York Times’ long-belated admission that the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell” was real, even though its explosive contents were covered up by members of the Intelligence Community, the Department of Justice, mainstream news corporations, and social media companies in what Congressman Darrell Issa notes was “clearly a conspiracy” undertaken to get Biden elected. 

If journalistic admissions that the fix was in were not enough, continuing social media censorship of anyone pointing out the unlikelihood that Dementia Joe won fifteen million more votes than Obama did in 2012, combined with the January 6 show trials and congressional clown shows desperate to paint the Capitol breach as literally worse than 9/11 and the Civil War put together, has left me with the enduring feeling that the “ruling class” doth protest too much.  In fact, every time I see a card-carrying member of the Establishment Club vouching for the authenticity of the 2020 election, I am reminded of the scene in the brilliant comedy The Jerk (surely “canceled” out of existence by today’s “woke” scolds) in which a bumbling gas station attendant played by Steve Martin accepts an obviously stolen credit card from a thief because his accomplice vouches for his friend’s identity.  We couldn’t possibly have had a stolen election in 2020 because all the very best people in America swear it was legitimate.  Okay, as long as we’ve got a voucher!

Far from the mere opinion of the “fringe minority” for whom I try to speak, a majority of the American people agree that the 2020 election was not on the up-and-up (a consensus that, while ignored by the mainstream corporate press, has only grown over time among Democrats, independents, and Republicans).

Here’s the kicker, though: whether you believe that 2020 election fraud speaks for itself or you have absolute faith in “our precious democracy” because we’ve got a voucher, President Trump’s 2020 performance was better than any Republican’s in history.  That’s his undeniable baseline regardless of how much NeverTrumping the NeverTrumps trumpet.  And a little over a year since O’Biden was installed in office, Donald Trump has only become more popular.  His favorability rating tops every national political figure.  He’s leading potential primary opponents by forty points.  And he’s beating President Braindead head-to-head by four points.  At the same time, 71% of Americans believe that the country is now headed in the wrong direction

Now, with all of that said, America will be asked repeatedly over the next two-plus years:

When trying to pay for gas, food, and other bare necessities, were you better off with Trump?

If trying to keep America out of foreign wars is important to you and your family, were you better off with Trump?

If you are worried about the future your children will inherit, were you better off with Trump?

If you are shocked by rampant censorship and “cancel” culture, were you better off with Trump?

If you are concerned about millions of illegal aliens destroying local communities, were you better off with Trump?

If you just desperately want America to be America again, were you better off with Trump?

You don’t have to be Nostradamus to know how tilted toward Trump’s favor those answers are going to be.  At some point, no matter how many institutions conspire to prevent his victory, the people clamoring for his return will be too much for the Expert Class to hide or overcome.  The country will be asked in Reaganesque fashion, “Are you better off today after four years of Biden?”  And Americans will answer by decisively re-electing President Trump in 2024.


America’s Truck Driver Shortage

By John F. Di Leo at American Thinker:

There is a trucker shortage… and it’s worse every year.

This is not news; this national driver shortage is no shock to businessmen or policymakers. Our driver shortage contributes to empty store shelves, idled assembly lines, retail price inflation, a reduced Gross Domestic Product, and the global supply chain crisis.

This is not just one industry’s problem; it’s everybody’s problem. What is odd, however, is that so many people believe the trucker shortage is caused entirely by not enough people choosing the profession of truck driving as a career.  While that is certainly a part of it, it’s not our real problem.

In fact, our truck driver shortage is caused primarily by a series of destructive government policies at every level.

Let’s begin by considering our own personal experience with transportation.  When you move your kids into college, if you have two drivers and two minivans or SUVs, the family can move the student on the same day, in one trip.  If you only have one driver, you may need to make two trips — both on opening day in the fall and on move-out day in the spring, doubling the time it takes to do the job.

Or consider our daily commutes to and from work; a half hour drive at non-rush times might become a one-hour drive at rush hour, or a 90-minute commute if there’s both normal traffic congestion and road construction making it worse. 

All these same issues apply to commercial transportation.  Road construction, traffic congestion, and bad weather contribute to make commercial transportation take more time — and therefore more man-hours — than it ought.  To the extent that these issues are unavoidable — like traffic at rush hour — that’s life; there’s nothing to be done about it. 

But, over the course of years, when we see that road construction lasts needlessly long because of government incompetence or graft, or that road rebuilds are done on the cheap, so they need to be done over and over again, across the decades, multiplying the time that roads are just torn-up obstacle courses, then we must acknowledge a truth:  that one of the reasons for commutes and commercial transportation taking longer than necessary is government misbehavior. 

The government is at least a part of the reason, a much bigger part than almost anyone realizes, not just for our individual wasted time spent on the roads, but for the additional needs for truck drivers, and therefore, for the cost and delays attributed to transportation in America today. 


We are suffering from a global supply chain crisis, caused in large part by the failure of our seaports and railyards to keep up with increasing volumes.  The container ship industry has responded steadily over the decades, building bigger and bigger ships, while most of our ports and railyards remain the same size they were 30 years ago. 

Trucks could once drive up to a port, collect their containers, and be out in half an hour or so; today, because of utterly unsustainable volume in ports and railyards that have failed to expand as needed, they are overwhelmed.  Trucks must now wait half a day or longer to make every container pickup and delivery.  This inefficiency causes the system to need two, three, even four times as many drivers as it should, through no fault of their own.

The driver gets in the queue at the crack of dawn, and waits for his turn from these inefficient public-private partnerships.  Our ports are managed by city and state port authorities; our railroads are federally regulated utilities, usually with no interest in their necessary expansion.  This is a completely unforced error, caused predominantly by government.

Consider fuel usage.  Now technically, this doesn’t necessarily hit the drivers, though it sure contributes to the cost of transportation.  Truckers pass this on through fuel surcharges, though our currently skyrocketing fuel costs do hit them hard in terms of cash flow.  

But it’s the issues that contribute to our fuel crisis that enhance the driver shortage.  As soon as the current regime took office in January, 2021, they started shutting down pipelines and denying authorization for new ones.  Without the smooth flow of oil through pipelines, tanker trucks are needed to move those millions of barrels across the country.  We have thousands of truck drivers hauling oil who could be hauling other things, but for this completely nonsensical pipeline shutdown.  So we can’t find drivers to haul regular freight, but we’re using them as a substitute while existing or planned pipelines go unused or unbuilt. An unforced error, entirely planned and executed by the federal government.

Next: the COVID-19 “pandemic,” when federal, state, and even county and city governments started imagining that masks and six-foot “social distancing” rules would stop a virus, and put such things into law, in everything from statutes and local ordinances to executive orders? 

Well, factories, distribution centers, retail stores and truck crossdocks were forced to adopt these measures, doubling or tripling the time it takes to prepare goods for shipment, and to handle each delivery and pickup.

What’s the result?  Every time you see a line of trucks down the block or around the corner, waiting for the chance to have one person do the work of three because three could no longer work together inside that eight-foot-wide truck, that’s yet another contribution to the driver shortage. Who dreamed up these six-foot social distancing rules? This unforced error too is entirely the product of government.

Consider states like California that have declared war on certain kinds of trucking. They have banned owner-operators from some kinds of moves, banned some kinds and ages of trucks, banned some kinds of fuel from still others.  In California, thousands of perfectly good drivers and rigs have had to look out of state for business, because their own state forbids them from working. Tens of thousands of containers stack up, clogging Los Angeles and Long Beach, waiting to be picked up, while thousands of competent drives with suitable rigs are banned from the port.

And these are just the reasons we need so many more drivers than we should.  We could also look at issues like the double-hit of the federal payroll tax that attacks owner-operators so hard. We could consider the complexities of federal Hours of Service (HoS) regulations that make every log sheet and fleet schedule a math project. We could review the federal fuel efficiency standards that have left common sense behind, chasing after ever-more-expensive, ever-less-worthwhile gains in efficiency, pricing rigs beyond the reach of entrepreneurial individuals, all contributing to the end result: making truck driving less appealing to the next generation of workers.

We do need more truck drivers. Transportation is at the heart of everything in our economy, from food prices to energy, from necessities to the little luxuries that make for a modern, first-world standard of living.  It’s government actions and government choices that hamstring the industry, drive up costs and drive down efficiency. 

It’s government that makes us need so many more drivers than we should, and dissuades the young from going into it as a career.

We can hardly be blamed if we are reminded of the late President Reagan’s dictum: The nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help.”

John F. Di Leo is a Chicagoland-based international transportation professional.  


Washington Post: Some of the material on Hunter Biden’s laptop is definitely real

JOHN SEXTON Mar 30, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

New York Post Cover Hunter Biden,

Earlier this month the NY Times off-handedly admitted that the Hunter Biden laptop story appeared to be true:

People familiar with the investigation said prosecutors had examined emails between Mr. Biden, Mr. Archer and others about Burisma and other foreign business activity. Those emails were obtained by The New York Times from a cache of files that appears to have come from a laptop abandoned by Mr. Biden in a Delaware repair shop. The email and others in the cache were authenticated by people familiar with them and with the investigation.

That paragraph very much upset the apple cart claiming the Hunter Biden laptop story was an obvious case of Russian disinformation or, alternatively, the result of malicious hacking. Both excuses were used to help bury the story when it first appeared a few weeks before the 2020 election.

Now that the Times has opened the door to admitting the laptop is real, the Washington Post has contacted to experts who have also confirmed that at least 22,000 emails on the drive, and some of the other files and documents, are real.

Thousands of emails purportedly from the laptop computer of Hunter Biden, President Biden’s son, are authentic communications that can be verified through cryptographic signatures from Google and other technology companies, say two security experts who examined the data at the request of The Washington Post.

The verifiable emails are a small fraction of 217 gigabytes of data provided to The Post on a portable hard drive by Republican activist Jack Maxey. He said the contents of the portable drive originated from Biden’s MacBook Pro, which Biden reportedly dropped off at a computer repair shop in Wilmington, Del., in April 2019 and never reclaimed.

But the Post isn’t willing to go as far as to say that the drive appears to be legitimate. In fact they say the argument over the laptop is not resolved by their analysts’ look at the data.


Many Republicans have portrayed this data as offering evidence of misbehavior by Hunter Biden that implicated his father in scandal, while Democrats have dismissed it as probable disinformation, perhaps pushed by Russian operatives acting in a well-documented effort to undermine Biden. Facebook and Twitter in 2020 restricted distribution of stories about the drive’s contents out of concern that the revelations might have resulted from a nefarious hacking campaign intended to upend the election, much as Russian hacks of sensitive Democratic Party emails shaped the trajectory of the 2016 election.

The Washington Post’s forensic findings are unlikely to resolve that debate, offering instead only the limited revelation that some of the data on the portable drive appears to be authentic. The security experts who examined the data for The Post struggled to reach definitive conclusions about the contents as a whole, including whether all of it originated from a single computer or could have been assembled from files from multiple computers and put on the portable drive…

“No evidence of tampering was discovered, but as noted throughout, several key pieces of evidence useful in discovering tampering were not available,” Williams’ reports concluded.

Deep into the story we learn that one of the emails the analysts were able to verify is one that was highlighted in one of the original NY Post stories about the laptop. This particular email involved Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser to Ukrainian gas company Burisma who thanked Hunter Biden for giving him an opportunity to “meet your father.”

One of the verified emails from Pozharskyi, which was the focus of one of the initial stories from the New York Post, was written on April 17, 2015. It thanked Hunter Biden “for inviting me to DC and giving me an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together.”

When the email first emerged in the New York Post about three weeks before the 2020 election, the Biden campaign and Hunter Biden’s lawyer both denied that Pozharskyi had ever met with Joe Biden. Asked recently about the email, the White House pointed to the previous denials, which The Post has examined in detail.

That link goes to a Glenn Kessler review of the dinner where Pozharskyi may or may not have met Joe Biden as the email claimed. But Kessler’s piece had its own problems. It stated that Pozharskyi wasn’t on an early guest list:

A tentative guest list for the event, as recounted in the New York Post from one of Hunter Biden’s emails three weeks before the dinner, did not include Pozharskyi. So it’s still unclear how the vice president could have met him, unless he was a last-minute addition. (Alex Karloutsos also is not included on that early list.) The Biden campaign, after a comprehensive review, had said a meeting never took place between Joe Biden and Pozharskyi.

But the author of the NY Post story Kessler was reviewing pointed out that the guest list included “Vadym” which, as noted above, is Pozharskyi’s first name.


In any case, it’s worth pointing out that the Daily Caller did a similar investigation and concluded this particular Pozharskyi email was real back in October 2020, before the election.

An email Hunter Biden received in April 2015 from a Burisma executive discussing an introduction to then-Vice President Joe Biden, which lies at the heart of a New York Post investigation, is unquestionably authentic, a cybersecurity expert told the Daily Caller News Foundation on Thursday…

[Robert] Graham, who has been cited as a cybersecurity expert in The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Wired, Engadget and other news and technology outlets, told the DCNF that he used a cryptographic signature found in the email’s metadata to validate that an account used by Vadym Pozharsky, an advisor to Burisma’s board of directors, emailed Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015.

Not only was this confirmed long ago, it was confirmed in exactly the same way, using a cryptographic signature. It’s odd that the Post story today never mentions that the Daily Caller beat them to this scoop by 17 months.


The Attacks On Clarence And Ginni Thomas Are Merely Latest In A Decades-Long Smear Campaign

BY: TRISTAN JUSTICE at the Federalist:

MARCH 30, 2022

Not only are the attacks on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas and his wife Ginni purely political, they’re deeply hypocritical.

While claiming its aggressive collection of confidential information on private citizens is “narrowly tailored” and without a nefarious purpose, Democrats on the Jan. 6 Committee selectively leaked communications of a private citizen to smear political opponents.

Last week, CNN and the Washington Post published text messages between Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, who goes by “Ginni,” and former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows exchanged in the days leading up to and on the day of the Capitol riot.

“Help This Great President stand firm, Mark!!!” Ginni reportedly urged Meadows days after the 2020 contest when news organizations began to call the race for former Vice President Joe Biden. “You are the leader, with him, who is standing for America’s constitutional governance at the precipice. The majority knows Biden and the Left is attempting the greatest Heist of our History.”

Out of the 29 of more than 2,300 text messages released from Meadows’ vast trove of data handed to the Select Committee, not one, the Washington Post conceded, included a direct reference to the sitting justice as the weaponized probe sought to dox a private citizen for petitioning her government.

“The messages, which do not directly reference Justice Thomas or the Supreme Court, show for the first time how Ginni Thomas used her access to Trump’s inner circle to promote and seek to guide the president’s strategy to overturn the election results,” the Post reported with the paper adopting Pelosi committee’s framing to indict private political views as a blockbuster scandal.

While the committee has made an open point to prosecute those who publicly sought to cast doubt on the fairness of the 2020 election results, the committee’s targeting of Ginni Thomas for privately petitioning government officials on her own marks further escalation of the probe’s assault on civil liberties, and makes Thomas case all the more unique.

CNN reported Monday the committee will now seek an interview with Ginni, who has become the latest to be dragged before lawmakers for exercising dissident views, even in private. But the probe’s latest request is just as much targeted at Ginni, a long-time conservative activist who has never concealed her activism, as it is her husband.

The left’s racist disdain for Justice Thomas has never been a well-kept secret by a virulent left frustrated by the mere existence of a black conservative, let alone one on the high bench. Attacks on Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson’s record on lenient sentencing for child sex crimes are cruel and racist. Baseless criticism of Justice Thomas is warranted, however, for his political heresy, starting with his own confirmation process three decades ago.

Publication of the text messages provoked immediate calls for Justice Thomas to recuse himself from any cases related to the Jan. 6 investigation for the crime of his wife’s public political views raising concerns over an election with record mail-in voting and last-minute rule changes. New York Democrat Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez even demanded Justice Thomas resign or face impeachment.

As outlined Tuesday in The Federalist by former Thomas Law Clerk Wendy Long, however, judges are never asked to recuse themselves over political views, whether their own or their spouse’s.

“Leftists in Congress and the media hyperventilate over every tidbit showing that Justice Thomas’s wife, Ginni, is involved in national conservative politics – most recently, that she pushed for integrity in the 2020 election,” Long wrote. “This isn’t news, and it has nothing to do with Justice Thomas’s ability to be a fair and impartial jurist.”

Instead, Long explained judicial recusal is about “mainly financial, legal, personal, or professional interests of the Justice or a family member.” Not personal politics. The strategy of the modern left, however, has been to intimidate the courts into submission to extremist and anti-Constitution politics. Consider the last three nomination battles: Justice Brett Kavanaugh was slandered as a serial gang rapist, Amy Coney Barrett was depicted as a character in The Handmaid’s Tale, and Stephen Breyer was pressured to retire while Democrats were in power to replace him.

Not only are the attacks on Thomas purely political, they’re hypocritical. Will Democrats calling on Justice Thomas to refrain from his official duties as a jurist similarly demand a probe into House Speaker Nancy Pelosi leveraging her position in Congress to rake in millions? Will journalists married to people in power recuse themselves from coverage on any issues their spouses conduct even minor work on? Probably not. It’s all theater.

Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist.

Chicago’s 100th Year Of Major DEM Gangster Crime! (ala Mr. Al Capone?) Will The City Celebrate Criminality?

AG: Chicago broke the law by hiding public records of racism allegations

by JAZZ SHAW Mar 30, 2022 at HotAir:

An odd turn of events comes to us out of City Hall in Chicago this week. Back on the campaign trail, when Lori Lightfoot was running to become the next mayor of the Windy City, she had a consistent theme. She frequently used the slogan, “bringing in the light.” As mayor, she said, she would have a mandate to “clean up a broken and corrupt political machine” at City Hall. During more than one debate she took a page from Joe Biden’s playbook and promised she “would make city government much more transparent and accountable for sure.”

Somewhere along the way, however, that all changed. The local CBS News outlet began an investigation into allegations of complaints by municipal workers about racist comments, harassment, and discrimination. The workers told CBS that such complaints were common. So back in 2020, they launched an investigation, submitting FOIA requests to City Hall asking for all relevant records where complaints were received regarding “racism, harassment, or discrimination,” starting at the Department of Streets and Sanitation, where some of the whistleblowers worked. The news outlet was consistently denied and not a single record was produced. But now the state Attorney General has stepped in and said that the City of Chicago had violated public records laws and the records must be released immediately. The ball is back in Lightfoot’s court.

The City of Chicago broke the law in refusing a CBS 2 public records request about racism and discrimination among city workers.

That’s the assessment the Illinois Attorney General made in a rare binding opinion issued last week.

In other words, the city must release the records, or they could face penalties.

Various experts have weighed in while awaiting the response from the Attorney General, saying that this wasn’t a simple policy difference. It’s one of the most egregious examples of violating the applicable public records laws that they could recall seeing. The city claims that the records couldn’t be released because they contain personal information about city employees. But that’s a silly defense since the personal information can easily be redacted.

So what has really been going on during Mayor Lightfoot’s tenure? Keep in mind that this is a Democratic administration in a city that is almost entirely run by Democrats at every level. Aren’t they supposed to be the champions of minorities on a self-appointed mission to root out discrimination, oppression, and harassment wherever it might be found? Shouldn’t Lori Lightfoot and her team have been eagerly wading into this battle and exposing the wrongdoers while bringing justice to the workers who were allegedly subjected to such treatment?

Perhaps those lofty morals and ideas don’t apply if it’s your own administration doing the oppressing and discriminating. To be clear, the few incidents the public has been made aware of were not minor in nature. One involved a Black husband-and-wife team of sanitation truck drivers who recorded people from the dispatch office repeatedly using the n-word when talking to or about some of the drivers, many of whom are Black and Hispanic. Other reports suggested sexual harassment and innuendo between supervisors and workers. From the sound of things, it wasn’t a lot of fun to be working at Streets and Sanitation unless you were in management.

And these workers obviously complained about it. They filed reports without seeing any disciplinary action taken. And when CBS went through the proper channels to obtain copies of those complaints as part of their investigation, the Mayor’s office slammed the door in their faces. But now, after the enforceable decision handed down by the State Attorney General, that may be about to change. And if it doesn’t, someone may have a date with a judge in their future.

(A Bit Of History To Absorb!)

March 30, 2022

The Democrats’ New ‘Latino’ Problem: The Ghost of James Monroe

By Robert Oscar Lopez at American Thinker:

On social media, some disturbing maps have circulated showing the globe in terms of which nations have sanctioned Russia over her invasion of Ukraine.  Bolivian writer Ollie Vargas posted this map, which makes clear that sanctions in Russia are seen as an absolute must in Europe, the English-speaking world, Japan, and South Korea.  Everywhere else, President Biden’s requests for economic war against Russia have been rejected.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki recently claimed that we have “basically crushed” Russia’s economy through sanctions, but is this true?  The sanctions can’t work in crushing the Russian economy and forcing the ouster of Putin if only a small percentage of the globe is really sanctioning Moscow.  Despite how important the United States and her allies are, Russia still has a huge playing field in which to recover trade.

Domestically, the Democrats have prided themselves on being the party of inclusion.  They spent half a decade convincing all of us that Trump was racist; Republicans were despised white supremacists; and people of color everywhere would embrace the liberal diversity gestures of Walt Disney, the Clinton Global Initiative, Twitter, Bloomberg, MSNBC, and Harvard University.  It seems black, brown, yellow, and otherwise non-white people have told Biden’s progressive party to take a hike.

Perhaps they see in Biden everything that the Democrats condemned Trump for; they just happen to think Trump does a better job at being Trump than Biden does.  Trump never tried to bully them into starving their citizens of Russian wheat, petrochemicals, fertilizer, barley, rye, gas, and oil.  Apparently this little detail matters a lot more than rumors that Trump once talked about s-hole countries.

It is hard to interpret events as anything other than a massive blow to American credibility abroad.  Around the world, people sympathize with innocent civilians harmed in Ukraine.  But there’s a difference in how people moralize and assign blame.  Europeans, Anglophone nations, Japan, and South Korea take America’s claims and promises seriously mostly because their experience with American credibility has been rather helpful.

On the other hand, now would be a good time for all those Critical Race theorists in New York and California to update their antiquated assumptions.  People outside the tidy U.S. sphere of influence don’t see the Ukraine invasion as a simple bad/good dichotomy.  Many recognize that the 2014 coup d’état that put the current Ukrainian regime in power as a typical Western intelligence operation, something they can recognize from their own histories.  Therefore, they aren’t swayed simply by the idea that Zelensky is naturally the good guy by virtue of being the one holding power before the war started.  A lot of them look at Zelensky and see a puppet, an agent of Western infiltration and subversion, not very different from the countless phonies that the CIA has installed in the four corners of the globe.

Most depressing is the fact that a lot of the world just doesn’t believe us.  They don’t have a lot of reason to believe us because the Biden administration got caught in quite a few recent lies.  Our reason for taking such keen interest in a dispute between Russia and Ukraine looks suspicious, given how many hotspots exist on the globe, which the United States all but ignores.

Americans think the rest of the world sees a nation leading the charge for freedom, democracy, prosperity, and human kindness.  The rest of the world sees some of that glowing idealism, mixed with a great deal of cynicism and hypocrisy.  It used to be Republicans who didn’t want to concede that people abroad had some reason for distrusting the U.S.  Now the Democrats are incapable of considering whether their fascination with green energy, LGBT rights, feminism, race, and Big Tech persuades people in Africa, Asia, and Latin America or just creeps a lot of people out.

Who are the countries that said no?   

That Africa and the Middle East would shrug off Biden’s calls is not that surprising, given that the United States has never treated issues in Africa as a high priority.

After the War on Terror, we did not expect Middle Eastern countries to jump on Biden’s bandwagon, especially since Biden voted in favor of the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq.

The high-profile refusals of China and India are disconcerting, to say the least, given their enormous populations (together nearly eight times the population of the U.S.) and the prospects that their continued commerce with Russia could create an alternate world economy from which the United States will have effectively exiled herself.

But perhaps the most underreported, and indeed most dangerous defections from U.S. dominance have taken place in Latin America.  Mexico’s president hails from the Party of the Democratic Revolution and has been celebrated for being the first truly indigenous leader of the tenth most populous country in the world (close to 130 million people).  You would think a man with such lefty credentials would be positively thrilled to work with a Democrat after four years of Trump…but you would be wrong.

President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced soon after the imposition of sanctions that Mexico would not partake in them: “We are not going to take any sort of economic reprisal because we want to have good relations with all the governments in the world.”

Let us just say it is less than comforting that we have a 1,900-mile open border with a country that just announced that it wants good relations with a Russian government the U.S. has sworn publicly to crush.

The other powerhouse south of the border is Brazil, where president Bolsonaro is not playing ball with Joe Biden, either.  Besides mocking Zelensky’s status as a comedian, Bolsonaro said Brazil needs Russian partnership to support its agribusiness and feed its population of over 200 million people.  As Reuters reported, “[h]e added that he was against any sanctions that could bring negative repercussions for Brazil, citing Russian fertilizers which are crucial for the country’s giant agribusiness sector.”

Countries with smaller populations are not holding back, either.  President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador loves to needle the United States government on Twitter now that Biden is in office.  In response to calls for a united front against Russia, Bukele wrote: “The real war is not in Ukraine, it’s in Canada, Australia, France, Brussels, England, Germany, Italy.  They just want you to look the other way.”  Nowadays he seems emboldened to use Bitcoin as an alternate currency despite the United States Congress issuing statements strongly opposed to such a move.  In response to criticisms over currency, Bukele asked on Twitter whether El Salvador deserves “sovereignty” the same way Ukraine does.

In nearby Nicaragua, still led by the now older superstar of Reagan-era geopolitics, Daniel Ortega, that rejection of sanctions is the least of Biden’s worries.  Ortega has openly sided with Russia and supports her latest moves, saying: “If Ukraine gets into NATO they will be saying to Russia let’s go to war, and that explains why Russia is acting like this.  Russia is simply defending itself.”  Recently, Russia’s deputy prime minister, Yuri Borisov, visited Venezuela and Cuba, both nations that have ironically survived U.S. sanctions against them, though not without pain.

We could go from Guatemala to Argentina, with each nation having its own flavor and specific angle on the issue.  But the continent is not going to sanction Russia.

That is not good for the United States for a lot of reasons, but for one reason, especially: Joe Biden publicly and aggressively asked all the countries of the world to sanction Russia and make her a pariah state.  By saying no to such an important request, our neighbors have made Biden’s America a pariah state instead.

The Monroe Doctrine Comes Back as a Zombie

If it were just Brazil and Mexico, we could blame the right-wing president in the former and/or the left-wing president in the latter.  But everyone seems to hate Biden’s America and what it represents in Latin America.  The left will have to grapple with this for years to come.

Democrats and Republicans alike would love to shrug off Latin America’s response and say, “Well, who needs them anyway?”  I am not so sure that’s a viable position to take.  Our border with Mexico is gaping.  If Biden’s recent slip-up (“Putin cannot remain in power“) spoke unintentional truth and our secret goal is regime change in Russia, we are looking at a war that will last a long time, in which Russia will defend her home turf against a foreign aggressor.

In the defender role, Russia will probably count on support from China and India.  Our military and intelligence operations are going to be stretched thin.  If the war goes on, we will probably need a draft to staff our military efforts.  We will simply not be able to defend our homeland from Russian and Chinese assets that find their way into the many nations of Latin America.  Put simply, we cannot place ourselves at war with Russia, China, and India, while conducting a sprawling intelligence and covert operation in all of Latin America to keep all those countries out of alliance with Russia and China.  And unlike the Middle East, the Latin American countries live right next to us.

Despite the posturing of the two parties, both Republicans and Democrats have inherited the Monroe Doctrine as their default framework.  On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe gave an address regarding the Latin American republics that had recently gained independence from Spain.  The 1820s was a time of excitement and rapid change in the Americas, especially with the colorful figure of Simón Bolívar in the middle of it all.

Speaking to the spirit of the age, James Monroe balanced conflicting sentiments.  On the one hand, many Americans were delighted that Latin American revolutionaries like Bolívar emulated Washington, Jefferson, and Adams — and indeed patterned their movement after the spirit of ’76.  On the other hand, the United States was already almost fifty years old and needed to contend with certain political realities.  The Americans had recently struck a deal with Spain and acquired Florida.  It was in the interests of the United States not to make an enemy of Madrid by allowing the independent republics to sign treaties with Spain’s rival, England; the Spaniards, ruled by the same dynasty as the French in the eighteenth century, had sided with the Americans against the British in the Revolutionary War.

Ideology was not so dear that we would pay any price to assist other democracies if it meant endangering our own.  It was one thing to have a far-flung Spanish empire led by weak Bourbon kings to the south of us.  Quite another thing was to have a quarrelsome clan of republics afire with idealism and of questionable stability.  American leaders feared that the volatility of independent Latin America, combined with the meddlesome influence of England, France, Spain, and possibly Russia (then advancing her interests in the Pacific Rim), would make the continent a breeding ground for groups subversive of U.S. interests.

Monroe delivered an address on December 2, 1823, balancing these competing sentiments and baking a policy scheme known as the Monroe Doctrine, which determined American policy in Latin America from Monroe’s presidency until the 1990s.  Monroe laid out three principles, which would prove pliable and subject to wildly different interpretations by later presidents who invoked it:

1. The Latin American republics, once freed, were not to be subject to recolonization by any foreign power.  [This essentially grew into the principle that the United States had the right to intervene if Latin American countries entered into treaties with other countries that did not serve our interests.]

2. Any foreign power attempting to exert influence over the Latin American republics would and should be viewed as a hostile action toward the United States and must be addressed as such.  [This grew into the Roosevelt Corollary, allowing the United States to interpret Latin American republics’ own pursuit of alliances as de facto acts of war, and grounds for U.S. intervention.]

3. In exchange for the European powers’ abstaining from Latin American affairs, the United States would abstain from European disputes.  [This was actually an idea that some Latin Americans liked, because it meant they would be recused from dangerous obligations to hostile combatants outside the hemisphere, but the clause was all but abandoned in the twentieth century as the United States pressured Latin Americans to pick sides in struggles such as the Cold War.]

Through the 1990s, with the exception of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policies during one limited period of time, U.S. presidents respected the Monroe Doctrine and cited it affirmatively.  In 1947, during the negotiations that led to the formation of the United Nations, the Truman administration cited the Monroe Doctrine as the justification for forming a separate multinational league, the Organization of American States, even naming it in one of the founding articles of the OAS.

Three articles I can recommend if you want an overview of this policy that goes deeper than Wikipedia are listed at the end of this article.  When I do a deep dive into the long history of the Monroe Doctrine, I find an enormous trove of scholarship about it from around the world because it went through several phases, all of which impacted other countries.

Russian scholars, like scholars everywhere, have studied the Monroe Doctrine because it stands out as such an important principle in the development of global politics.  Unfortunately, all the doctrine’s clauses look and sound exactly like Russia’s rationale for invading Ukraine.  If we try to talk around the parallels or dismiss such comparison as “whataboutism,” we aren’t going to win friends and influence people.  We just undermine our own credibility and look like hypocritical clowns.  Without the Monroe Doctrine, Los Angeles and Dallas would be part of Mexico.  That’s not a small, irrelevant detail.

The list of American interventions into Latin American affairs is long and bloody.  Virtually every nation in Latin America has been subject to invasion or other kinds of domination by the United States.  Not everyone in Latin America harbors a grudge against the United States, but most people in Latin America will not be receptive to the moral argument that they should back the United States against Russia based on principles of international law.  It would be extremely offensive for President Biden even to try to make such an argument.

Aside from the moral argument, the United States has no other argument beyond threats and bullying that a crisis with Russia would leave America too weak to enforce.  No country in the region has any reason to believe that Biden could sanction them for not sanctioning Russia; Biden’s hurried overtures to the despised government in Caracas prove that.

Latin America has no military interest in propping up Ukraine’s corrupt government and has an enormous economic interest in keeping trade lanes open with Russia and China.

Like Frankenstein’s monster coming back to kill the scientist who created him, the pestilent and tattered Monroe Doctrine walks among us again.  Monroe stands vindicated, in one sense: he was right that Latin America’s allegiances with foreign powers undermine the United States’ political position at home.  The difference between 1823 and 2022 is stark, however.  In 1823, the republics wanted to stay on good terms with the United States and build their countries up as best as they could.  In 2022, they look at America and see her led by someone they don’t respect.

The problem for President Biden is that he inherits all the debts and guilt that come with two hundred years of Monroe’s doctrine while he possesses none of the strength or political know-how to put it in motion.  That’s a problem he may never solve.  The Biden Corollary might simply be to lose everything, everywhere, all the time.

Question: What Has Happened To Our Finest JudeoChristian World These Past 20 Years?

The finest day for mankind and a witness in Poland

Christ the King statue in Świebodzin, Poland is currently the tallest statue of Jesus in the world reaching 172 feet off the ground.

Items above sent by Mark Waldeland!

Sad And Disgraceful!

MARCH 30, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


We’ve noted several times recently that Hunter Biden’s corruption is getting more attention from the mainstream media, which makes you wonder whether “Operation Remove Joe” has commenced in earnest.

First there was the New York Times acknowledgement that the Hunter Biden laptop was “authentic,” after suppressing any mention of it for two years. Today the Washington Post weighs in with a very damaging story about Hunter Biden’s “business” deals overseas:

While many aspects of Hunter Biden’s financial arrangement with CEFC China Energy have been previously reported and were included in a Republican-led Senate report from 2020, a Washington Post review confirmed many of the key details and found additional documents showing Biden family interactions with Chinese executives.

Over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle, according to government records, court documents and newly disclosed bank statements, as well as emails contained on a copy of a laptop hard drive that purportedly once belonged to Hunter Biden. . .

[T]he new documents — which include a signed copy of a $1 million legal retainer, emails related to the wire transfers, and $3.8 million in consulting fees that are confirmed in new bank records and agreements signed by Hunter Biden — illustrate the ways in which his family profited from relationships built over Joe Biden’s decades in public service. . .

The contract, signed on Aug. 2, 2017, stated that Hunter Biden would get a one-time retainer of $500,000 and would then receive a monthly stipend of $100,000, with his uncle James Biden getting $65,000 a month. . .

The potential energy projects Hunter Biden discussed with CEFC never came to fruition.

This last sentence ought to be enough to keep a red flag factory working triple shifts for a year.

The Post reports that there is no smoking gun showing any of the money ended up in Joe Biden’s pocket, but one wouldn’t expect any easy traces of such transfers. Joe Biden may be dumb, but he’s not stupid. (Well, okay, he is stupid, too, but you know what I mean.)

And while there may not be any direct evidence, there is this detail in the Post story:

A few weeks after he went into business with the CEFC executives in the fall of 2017, Hunter Biden requested changes to the fifth-floor office space he was renting at the House of Sweden, an airy building in Georgetown that is home to the Swedish Embassy and other offices.

On Sept. 21, 2017, Hunter Biden wrote to a building manager requesting new office signage to reflect a new family enterprise and a new business relationship: “The Biden Foundation and Hudson West (CEFC- US),” he wrote in emails to the property manager.

He also requested keys for his new office mates: his father, Joe; his mother, Jill; his uncle James; and the Chinese executive, Gongwen Dong.

Question for further investigation: Why was the “Biden Foundation,” a charitable entity (and what has it ever done I wonder) sharing space with a for-profit entity? How were the office expenses divided between the two?

Of course, the difficulty with the “Operation Remove Joe” is that Kamala Harris is in the way. Start your countdown clock for some old story of Kamala Korruption emerging from California. There’s at least one Democrat whose name rhymes with gruesome who would like to see Kamala out of the way.