• 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

“If you’re a California voter, I recommend pulling the lever for Michael”.

MAY 10, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


 Remember how during the Iraq War the deranged left fingered Leo Strauss (d. 1973) as somehow the intellectual inspiration behind the neoconservative drive to war in the Middle East? It was downright silly, and in any case Thomas G. West provided a thorough refutation of this nonsense in the Claremont Review of Books.

Better get ready for a sequel. A few years ago there appeared a new edition of The Vicar of Christ, a novel by the late constitutional scholar Walter F. Murphy of Princeton University, among whose Princeton undergraduate students was one Samuel Alito. In fact Murphy advised Alito on Alito’s senior thesis, a study of the Italian Constitutional Court. Now Justice Alito wrote a Foreword to the new edition, and it includes this passage:

“Leaving active duty in 1955, Murphy entered the Ph.D program at the University of Chicago with the intention of studying political theory with Leo Strauss. What happened next set the course of Murphy’s career and touched on the subjects of “The Vicar of Christ.” Strauss recommended that Murphy write his dissertation on a medieval tract, Defensor Pacis, in which an Italian scholar, Marsilius of Padua, championed the sovereignty of civil authorities and denied any temporal authority to the pope or clergy.”

Because everything can be traced back to Strauss in the left’s fevered imagination, cue the left’s hysteria in three, two. . .

 Nice piece today in the Wall Street Journal on the gonzo independent race for governor of California by my pal Michael Shellenberger:

His political evolution resembles the cartoon recently tweeted by Elon Musk —a stationary guy in the center left of the political spectrum finds himself being pulled to the center right as his fellow liberals sprint the other way. . .

He became an outspoken advocate for nuclear energy and shale gas fracking to reduce CO2 emissions. After writing a book criticizing climate alarmism, he turned his focus to the social policies that are ruining big cities on the West Coast, especially in California’s Bay Area where he has lived for three decades. . .

As for the exodus of Californians fleeing the state’s exorbitant cost of living, Mr. Shellenberger blames environmentalists who want policies that make energy, water, housing and jobs scarce.

If you’re a California voter, I recommend pulling the lever for Michael.


May 9, 2022

Why Would Rural Americans Vote for Those Who Hate Them?

By J.B. Shurk at American Thinker:

It never ceases to amaze me when the same politicians and pundits who spew vile rhetoric aimed at rural Americans all year long turn around and ask for those Americans’ votes.  The New York Times (the titular “paper of record” that pushed Trump-Russia “collusion” lies while ignoring the Biden Crime Family’s quid pro quo money-making in Ukraine) recently featured an opinion piece claiming that “Biden has already done more for rural America than Trump ever did.”  Democrat lemmings quickly regurgitated the overrated rag’s propaganda.

After feeling the tug on his leash from Old Witch Pelosi, the honey-trapped Congressman Eric Swalwell (whose dimwittedness made him a natural target for the Chinese Communist Party to compromiselaughably insisted that under China Joe’s lethargic leadership, “we are all doing much better … especially … rural America.”  As is only fitting for a regime requiring its own Ministry of Truth, Swalwell then instructed his (brain-dead) Twitter followers to share the Times story “to make sure we all understand.”  And so, right on schedule as midterm elections near, the anti-democratic Democrat party pretends rural American voters have never had it so good, and certainly better than the gun-totin’, Bible-thumpin’ racist rednecks deserve.  Ah, the politics of condescension still smells worse than pig manure on a hot day.  Uff da!

For the record, the only people better off in rural America during the reign of Jo’Bama are the Bill Gates billionaires and mysterious Chinese corporations buying up farmland throughout the country.  For everyone else, Obamacare’s destruction of rural hospitals, nonsensical Green New Deal diktats, outrageous fuel and feed costs, infrequent yet prohibitively expensive fertilizer shipments, and destabilized supply chains, plus the return of Big Government agricultural regulation and Chinese trade appeasement, have created grim economic times and uncertain futures.  In President Trump, farmers had a man who understood their needs and fought for their interests.  In President Dementia, farmers have an enfeebled man who has no sympathy for their needs and fights for China’s interests.

Only two percent of America’s population roll up their sleeves and farm the land so that everyone else has clothes to wear and food to eat.  There are many admirable professions but none so vital as the farmer’s.  It’s hard, sweaty work, often providing unpredictable income.  When the federal Leviathan insists on imposing its jurisdictional fiats on everything from pesticides to rain puddles, that work gets harder and more unpredictable.  When a bunch of know-nothing armchair academics micro-manage what’s going on out here as if Stalin’s Five-Year Plan were back in fashion, then food shortages and price hikes become inevitable.  You cannot farm from the comfort of an air-conditioned Georgetown.  You cannot feed America by undermining America’s farmers.  And if you cannot feed America, what is the point of flexing American muscle over breached borders in Ukraine?

Farming attracts a certain kind of people — those who are willing to put their fortunes on the line season after season, herd after herd, for uncertain reward.  You can do everything right and still suffer the unforgivable fates of pernicious weather and disease.  You can work your tail off just to eke by; in fact, when conditions are rough, just eking out a living perversely requires working harder than ever.  You can put in a long day’s work, just to discover that your efforts were in vain.  You can have a great crop or healthy cattle one day only to find fungus and parasites destroying everything you have the next.  If you want to know what the “business of life” is, find a farmer.  It takes grit and spit and blood and many days under the hot sun.  Snowflakes would melt, and champagne socialists would croak.  There’s no time for victims, tantrums, or privilege pity-parties out in rural America.

Something else that distinguishes rural Americans from the Marxists running D.C. is what you might call the harsh demarcation separating “theory” from “application.”  For the bureaucratic “ruling class” squatting near the Potomac, there’s no idea stupid enough that it can’t be retried a dozen times.  You would think those elitists most inclined to define themselves through their academic pedigrees would actually learn from historical failures written down in the books they (at least pretend to) have read.  Alas, repeating mistakes is Washington’s forte.

Printing money has never produced “sustainable” prosperity, but D.C. doesn’t care.  No nation has ever survived while prostrating itself before the false gods of “multiculturalism” and “diversity,” but the federal government wants illegal immigration and so shall have it.  No country can remain militarily dominant while choking off its energy supplies, weakening its armed forces, and provoking needless foreign conflicts abroad, but the Washington War Machine can’t feed on peace alone.  In D.C., well-bred royalty can “theorize” about the benefits of rampant inflation, illegal immigration, and war.  In the real world, where theories go to die, there is no refuge from the consequences of the idiotic rantings embraced by charlatans, commies, and crackpots.

In rural America, something either works or it doesn’t.  There’s no wiggle room to repeat the same mistake ten times or theorize why something should have worked “on principle.”  There’s not enough room for error to complain to those who depend on your efforts that you “had the best of intentions.”  “Hope and change” don’t get a field plowed or a crop harvested.  “Build Back Better” is an insult to people who build for a living every single day.  “Theory” is a luxury that takes a backseat to serious, hard work and determination.  Bureaucrats have never seen a problem they can’t make worse; rural Americans have never seen a problem they don’t expect to fix themselves.  There are no excuses.  There are no second chances.  It’s get-to-work, get-it-fixed, get-‘er-done.

And for working their hearts out doing the dirty jobs that white-collared empty suits demean and ignore, rural Americans receive nothing but mockery and derision from the Democrat party.  They are slandered as “racists” when it’s impossible to find a more welcoming group of Americans.  They are belittled as “rednecks” because they sweat for what they own.  They are ridiculed as “religious extremists” because they have the good sense to thank God each week for all they have.  They are scorned for proudly waving the American flag in their yards and from their trucks, even when the government Leviathan purportedly serving that flag instead works diligently to undermine all they are.  Rural Americans keep America afloat, and for their efforts, they are one of the few groups of people the paragons of political correctness openly abuse.

Yet that’s okay.  Because rural Americans are tough and don’t ask for sympathy and always figure out a way to survive, no matter how difficult the next challenge.  They’re winners in this life because they know intimately just what a gift life is.  They know how to keep getting back up on their own because if they did not, they would be gone.  But surely that’s enough of a load for one group of Americans to shoulder without also forcing them to stomach the Democrat party’s biennial attempts to claim that it deserves rural Americans’ votes when Democrats go out of their way between elections to show their absolute hatred for rural America’s voters.  For all that rural America does for everyone else, that really shouldn’t be too much to ask.


Hunter Biden’s Hollywood lawyer paid off his $2M IRS debt – his “sugar brother”

KAREN TOWNSEND May 09, 2022  

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

I’ve never heard the term “sugar brother” before reading about this story but the week’s young. Usually sugar precedes daddy or mama yet in this case, it is a Hollywood lawyer who is paying Hunter Biden’s way in Los Angeles. His support includes Hunter’s overdue $2M tax debt. The debt is paid in full.

Not only is mega-lawyer Kevin Morris handling Hunter’s overdue tax bill, he’s also picking up the tab for Hunter’s lavish lifestyle in Los Angeles. The New York Post reports that Morris is paying Hunter’s rent and daily expenses. He’s also helping him sell his artwork. This guy’s a peach! I’ll remind you that Bad Boy Biden is being investigated by a grand jury in Delaware over his personal finances.

Kevin Morris, an entertainment attorney and novelist who earned a fortune representing the co-creators of “South Park” and won a Tony Award as the co-producer of “The Book of Mormon,” footed Hunter Biden’s overdue taxes totaling over $2 million — more than twice what was previously reported, a source familiar with conversations between the two told The Post.

Morris, whom Hunter Biden’s friends call his latest “sugar brother,” has also been funding the 52-year-old’s lifestyle in Los Angeles — including his rent and living expenses, the source said.

The attorney has also been advising the president’s son on how to structure his art sales, according to the source.

The total amount that Hunter owed the IRS was originally underreported by the media? Shocker. Morris is a highly successful Hollywood lawyer and a novelist. South Park money is big money so Hunter’s debts were probably easily manageable for Morris. He no longer works at a firm he co-founded that represents A-list celebrities.

Morris is a founding member of the firm Morris Yorn Barnes Levine in Los Angeles, which has represented A-list Hollywood celebrities such as Matthew McConaughey, Ellen DeGeneres, Scarlett Johansson, Liam Hemsworth and Chris Rock. He no longer works at the firm.

In 2014, he published a collection of short stories titled “White Man’s Problems,” and in 2016 published his debut novel, “All Joe Knight,” which was listed as Amazon Best Book of the Month in Literature and Fiction in December 2016.

Hunter’s shady personal finances are not new news. He’s been under investigation for alleged tax fraud and unpaid taxes on money he accumulated while his father, a.k.a. The Big Guy, was vice-president. By clearing his past due tax debt, it may be more difficult for prosecutors to convict Hunter and win a lengthy sentence. Not that I think Hunter will get more than a slap on the wrist but it would be good to finally hold him accountable after all the incriminating evidence is surfacing from the laptop that the media told us was Russian disinformation. The media will continue to cover for Hunter and the ridiculous story from The Big Guy that he knows nothing about his shady son’s business dealings. Morris has been quiet about his relationship with Hunter. Hunter’s New York attorney, however, spilled the beans.

Morris won a Tony Award for co-producing ‘The Book of Mormon’. He earned his fortune negotiating licensing deals worth hundreds of millions of dollars for South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, besides the income from his entertainment law firm. He’s a published author. He released a collection of short stories in 2015 entitled ‘White Man’s Problems’ and a novel entitled ‘All Joe Knight’ in 2016.

CBS News confirmed the relationship and reports that Morris operates behind the scenes. His attention has turned to “conducting a forensic analysis and investigation into what happened to Hunter Biden’s laptop — including how the device became public, sources familiar with his efforts say.”

Entering the bruising political fight is an unusual move for Morris, who has long been a maverick in Hollywood. Morris founded a law firm that represented a cast of A-list stars and then began writing fiction and producing documentaries. He also subsequently helped negotiate another “South Park” deal, this one worth a reported $900 million, with MTV Entertainment Studios, which is part of the CBS News’ parent company Paramount.

Hunter Biden could not be reached for comment, but his criminal attorney, Christopher Clark, confirmed that Morris is serving as an “attorney and trusted adviser” to Hunter Biden.

So, what’s in it for Morris? Other than potential access to the president or the White House, he is working on a documentary on Hunter’s life since “he has been the focus of conservative television commentators and investigated by congressional Republicans” . That is according to a Democrat Party source in Washington. Is the DNC involved in any of this? The source conveniently blames Hunter’s troubles on Republicans so it’s a legitimate question to ask. Sounds swampy.

Remember when Daddy Joe agreed to pay off more than $800,000 in Hunter’s bills, including legal fees over his shady business dealings, in order to get it out of the way before the 2020 election? If Joe paid off legal fees and other debts over Hunter’s business dealings, why would we believe that Joe doesn’t know a thing about Hunter’s deals – especially those made using the family name in countries overseas? Hunter’s assistant at the time even referred to Hunter’s associates as “the VP team”.

When the Republicans take back the House after the November midterm elections, rest assured that there will be investigations into Hunter’s finances and how they may relate to his father, the president. It’s about time. Biden, Inc. needs to be put out of business.


MAY 9, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Jen Psaki is departing the White House to make money at MSNBC. Her replacement as White House Press Secretary is Karine Jean-Pierre, a lunatic lefty on several counts. But for now, let’s go with this: Jean-Pierre alleged that Georgia’s election for governor in 2018 was stolen:

Stacey Abrams has made a career out of claiming that the 2018 election, which she lost by 54,000 votes, was fraudulent. Democrats across the country took up her cause, but the worm turned in 2020, when Joe Biden allegedly defeated Donald Trump in Georgia by fewer than 12,000 votes. Election integrity in Georgia? It is immaculate and unquestionable!

So, inquiring minds want to know: is Jean-Pierre’s allegation that the 2018 election was “stolen” a “threat to our democracy”? Maybe Peter Doucy will ask her that question.


Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings

Judge Christopher Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party extend beyond declaring the ‘co-conspirator’ exception off limits.

MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

The Obama-appointed judge presiding over the criminal case against former Hillary Clinton campaign attorney Michael Sussmann let politics trump the law when he declared in a weekend opinion he would not rule on whether the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee conspired with others to peddle the Russia collusion hoax.

Special Counsel John Durham charged Sussmann last September in a one-count indictment with making a false statement to then-FBI General Counsel James Baker when Sussmann provided Baker data and “whitepapers” purporting to show a secret communication network between Donald Trump and the Russian-based Alfa Bank. According to the indictment, Sussmann told Baker he was sharing the information on his own, when, in fact, Sussmann represented both tech executive Rodney Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

With trial set to begin in one week, the last month has seen a flurry of pretrial motions—called “motions in limine”—seeking pretrial rulings on the admissibility of evidence. The court previously ruled on several of the issues the parties presented, holding in many cases that a final decision must await trial. Then, late Saturday, presiding Judge Christopher Cooper issued a further opinion resolving many of the still-outstanding evidentiary challenges.

Overall, Cooper’s Saturday night opinion, like his previous rulings in this case, represented a studious and a balanced approach to the legal issues, with Sussmann prevailing at times, but the special counsel succeeding on other issues. For instance, in a victory for Durham, the court ruled that prosecutors could present evidence concerning how the Alfa Bank “data came into being and who was involved in its collection and analysis, as well as how Mr. Sussmann came to possess the data, what he did with it, and why.”

But the court also ruled in Sussmann’s favor, first reiterating its previous holding that unless Sussmann claims at trial that the Alfa Bank data is accurate, the government may not present evidence challenging its validity. Cooper further held that the government could not present evidence that Joffe inappropriately accessed proprietary or sensitive government information to gather the data or write the whitepapers, absent some evidence “showing that Mr. Sussmann had concerns that the data was obtained inappropriately.”

Judge Cooper further demonstrated his baseline when he confronted two more significant issues presented by the opposing parties. Sussmann scored a victory when the court held the government could not admit evidence concerning notes taken by former FBI Assistant Director Bill Priestap and former Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson unless they testified about their previous conversations with Baker. Even then, Judge Cooper indicated that at most the jury would likely only be read the contents of the notes, as opposed to receiving the notes themselves as exhibits to view.

Such a limitation will surely inure to Sussmann’s benefit because seeing in writing Priestap’s notation, “Michael Sussman[n]—Atty: Perkins Coie—said not doing this for any client” and Anderson’s note, “Sussman[n] Mtg w/ Baker,” “No specific client but group of cyber academics talked w/ him abt research,” would likely strike a more solid punch than merely hearing their testimony.

Sussmann, however, failed in his attempt to force the government to provide Joffe immunity so Joffe would be willing to testify in Sussmann’s defense. Sussmann had argued that the government had no reasonable basis to claim that Joffe remained a target of a criminal investigation given that the five-year statute of limitations for false statements had run, and that therefore the special counsel’s threat of prosecution served solely to induce Joffe to plead the fifth and refuse to testify on behalf of Sussmann.

Not only did the court reject this argument, in doing so the court stated—simply and without commentary—that “the Special Counsel’s continued representation that Mr. Joffe is a subject of its investigation, rather than simply a witness, does not amount to prosecutorial misconduct on this record.” Given that Sussmann framed the government’s claim that Joffe remained a target as unbelievable, the court’s refusal to question the special counsel’s representation illustrates Judge Cooper’s baseline apolitical equilibrium.

The Obama appointee faltered, however, on the Clinton campaign and handling the special counsel’s argument that various emails, even if they were hearsay, were admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. At issue were emails between Joffe and the Georgia Tech researchers Manos Antonakakis, Dave Dagon, and April Lorenzen, the “originator” of the Alfa Bank data whom Joffe had allegedly tasked to mine internet data to find a Trump-Russia connection.

After concluding some, but not all, of the emails were hearsay, the court addressed the government’s argument that the emails were admissible under federal rules of evidence as “a co-conspirator statement.”

First, Some Lawsplaining

Under federal rules of evidence, a statement made by a “co-conspirator” of a defendant “during and in furtherance of the conspiracy” is admissible even though it is hearsay. Hearsay is an out-of-court statement, oral or in writing, that is presented to the jury to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.

The “conspiracy” need not be criminal, however, for a statement made by another member of the “conspiracy” to be admissible, with courts typically calling non-criminal conspiracies “joint ventures.” But before a court may admit a statement under this “co-conspirator” exception, it must find “by a preponderance of the evidence” that such a conspiracy or joint venture existed. (A “preponderance of the evidence” means it is more likely that a conspiracy existed than that it didn’t, i.e., that the court is 50.1 percent sure there was such a joint venture.)

The Joint Venture

In the Sussmann case, the special counsel submitted that Joffe, Sussmann, and the Clinton campaign (or its agents) were “acting in concert toward a common goal”—i.e., “assembling and disseminating the [Alfa Bank] allegations and other derogatory information about Trump to the media and the U.S. government.” The Georgia Tech researchers and Lorenzen were also part of this joint venture, according to prosecutors.

Judge Cooper, however, refused to consider whether such a joint venture existed, stating instead that, for a variety of reasons, his court was exercising “its discretion not to engage in the kind of extensive evidentiary analysis that would be required to find that such a joint venture existed, and who may have joined it.”

A court is well within its discretion to refuse to undertake a “lengthy journey” to assess whether a “joint venture” existed and thus whether the various emails are admissible under the “co-conspirator statement” exception to the hearsay rule. But in the same breath that he declared himself unwilling to make this excursion, Judge Cooper contradicted his own reasoning.

“The government has indicated that it intends to call one or both of the Georgia Tech researchers at trial,” Judge Cooper wrote. “Either of them could testify to their role in assembling the data, how they came to be tasked with the project, and whether they believed the research was done for the Clinton Campaign or some other purpose.”

Thus, contrary to the court’s rationale, there is no “lengthy journey” to traverse: The court need only wait until trial to allow the government to elicit from witnesses testimony confirming the “joint venture”—something Cooper ruled they “could” testify about. In fact, in its brief in arguing the emails were admissible as “co-conspirator” statements, the special counsel’s office noted that a court could “preliminarily admit hearsay statements of co-conspirators, subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.”

But Judge Cooper didn’t even need to admit the emails were “subject to connection through proof of conspiracy.” All the Obama appointee needed to do was follow the same approach he did when confronted with other evidentiary issues that were unclear or where the admissibility depended on the proof at trial: wait for trial to issue a ruling.

Further, ruling on the admissibility of the emails based on the “co-conspirator” exception to the hearsay rule during trial would require little effort, as Cooper’s Saturday opinion itself recognized, by noting that it “has already ruled on the admissibility of many of the emails on other grounds.”

That Judge Cooper deviated from the approach he took with other evidentiary issues, namely withholding final ruling until trial, only on the question of whether the Clinton campaign had conspired to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax, suggests politics motivated that approach.

Two Other Supporting Facts

Two other details from Judge Cooper’s opinion bolster that conclusion. First, not only did Cooper declare he would not rule on the co-conspirator exception for purposes of the specific emails the special counsel’s office sought to introduce, he prejudged the importance of other emails “the Court has not yet seen.”

“Whatever few emails remain,” the court noted, “are likely to be either irrelevant or redundant of other admissible evidence,” thus negating, in the court’s view, the need to address the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule.

Tellingly, after announcing he would not consider the co-conspirator exception in deciding whether these still-unseen emails were admissible, Judge Cooper added that during trial he would consider whether those same emails might be admissible for a non-hearsay reason. Again, why not do the same on the co-conspirator exception?

The answer seems clear: A court declaring that Hillary Clinton’s then-lawyer had engaged in a conspiracy to “gather and spread damaging information about a Presidential candidate shortly before the scheduled election” would be a devastating blow to the Democrat.

Trying to Protect Democrats and Clinton

Judge Cooper’s efforts to counter the impact of the case on Clinton, and more broadly the Democratic Party, extend beyond merely declaring the “co-conspirator” exception off limits. Rather, in his weekend opinion, after announcing his plan to punt, Judge Cooper proceeded to question the special counsel’s theory, calling the “contours” of the joint “venture and its participants are not entirely obvious.” He then noted he was “particularly skeptical that the researchers” shared in this common goal.

Beyond being an unnecessary annotation to a case in which he expressly declined to address the co-conspirator exception, Judge Cooper’s analysis constructed a strawman to destroy. Durham’s team never claimed that the researchers joined in a conspiracy with Clinton directly, and never claimed they intended to peddle the Alfa Bank hoax to the FBI.

Rather, the joint venture concerned the shared goal of gathering and spreading damaging information about Trump and involved agents of the Clinton campaign, such as Fusion GPS. And the evidence of that joint venture was overwhelming, easily satisfying the preponderance of the evidence test. But even if Judge Cooper was not so sure about that conclusion, waiting for the trial testimony was the proper procedure, as his many earlier rulings demonstrate.

In refusing to consider the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule, Judge Cooper may see himself as keeping politics out of the case. After all, as the federal judge noted in the opinion, the special counsel did not charge Sussmann with a conspiracy. But a conspiracy need not be charged for the co-conspirator exception to apply, and this case is political to its core—just as the FBI’s investigation of Trump and the corrupt press’ reporting on the Russia collusion hoax was.

And Hillary Clinton was behind it all, whether the court opts to ignore the conspiracy or not.

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today. 

Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24!

May 9, 2022

May 9 is Victory Day in Russia.

By Ed Sherdlu at American Thinker:

Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine on February 24 in what his military promised him would be a one-week victorious blitzkrieg. Instead, 2½ months later, nothing is going right. Putin knows that to remain in power, the Russian people must see him as winning his ill-defined “special military operation” in Ukraine. As what the Mafia would define as the “boss of all bosses” in Russia, Putin has no official deadline for success but, in the minds of many Russians, major success is expected by Victory Day, May 9. The question now is this: What is Putin willing to do to demonstrate some sort of victory by that date? Would he go nuclear for a victory by Victory Day?

For Russians, May 9’s Victory Day is their Veterans Day, Memorial Day, and a little bit of our Fourth of July all wrapped into one. It celebrates the Soviet victory over Germany in World War II. To understand the significance of this day, remember that Russians call WWII the Great Patriotic War. That title is well-earned. In the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the United States lost about 420,000 people in Europe, Africa, and the Pacific. By comparison, 25 million Soviets lost their lives in defense of the Motherland. That’s 60 times our losses.

Despite the official Russian government line that their army is defeating fascists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, the truth about the failure of Putin’s army is becoming well known. Although no one would dare tell Putin that something must happen by May 9, the Russian dictator is well aware of that feeling in the Kremlin and throughout Russia.

Putin is not going to achieve anything resembling a total victory by that date. Everyone is aware he gave up on conquering Kyiv and concentrated all his forces on capturing Mariupol. The 2,000 undefeated Ukrainian soldiers holding out in the steel plant there are an undeniable signal to every Ivan that the Russian army, which promised to quickly overrun an entire country, can’t even evict a brigade of Ukrainians from the twisted wreckage of a large factory.

Putin’s latest tactic is a nonstop missile barrage targeting the steel plant. The impact of the warheads has turned the enormous former factory into a tangled wreckage of rusting steel stretching as far as the eye can see. But that may be a serious tactical error and a repeat of a problem that stalled the Allied war effort in Italy almost 70 years ago.

As the Allies marched north in Italy, the old mountaintop monastery at Monte Cassino stopped their advance. Germans on the high ground could fire down on the Americans with virtual impunity. From the rabbits’ warren of buildings surrounding the old monastery, observers for German artillery located miles behind the battle lines could direct that artillery fire onto the Allies below with devastating accuracy.

The Allies withdrew a few miles south so our bombers could reduce the old monastery to rubble. But as the bombs fell, the German troops retreated to the monastery’s cellars. They survived the tens of tons of high explosives dropped on them. The cellars that once held the old monks’ wine provided the Wehrmacht with a bomb-proof overhead cover.

Once the bombing was over, the Germans emerged to find the Allied bombing had given them an even more defensible position. What had been well-ordered buildings was now massive rubble that easily concealed snipers, sappers, and those critically needed artillery observers.

Image: Mariupol. YouTube screen grab.

The old monastery’s destruction also gave the Allies another problem. They planned their attack using the pictures of the old monastery. In the aftermath of the bombing, it was nothing more than a huge pile of unknown debris that the Allies had to fight through yard by yard before proceeding further north through Italy. It took five months of bloody assaults before the Polish II Corps could raise their flag atop the ruins of the holy place that had become a hell for the Allies.

Has Putin made the same mistake as the World War II Allied air power planners? By exploding hundreds of his missile warheads, has he turned the Mariupol steel plant into thousands of unknown battle positions for the Ukrainian defenders? As all too often happens in war, have high-tech battle strategies from armchair Kremlin generals made it harder for the individual soldier to conquer the enemy with little more than his low-tech rifle?

Is Bill Maher Still Selling Lefty Quicksand?

Bill Maher Trashes Liz Warren’s College Debt Plan Over a Very Simple Reason

Matt Vespa

Matt Vespa


|Posted: May 09, 2022

Forgiving college debt is a trash plan, and it’s not just conservatives who know this. Democratic strategist James Carville has been saying this for years, noting that it’s just a loser issue. Millions of Americans have been going to school, working, and paying off their loans. No one really wants to hear this. These sentiments were echoed last week during “Real Time with Bill Maher.” It’s not hard to see how this issue could backfire on Democrats dramatically. It’s not hard to see if this passes, how we could see a series of Donald Trump-like presidencies. 

Democrats want to get it done quickly for that reason—they know the longer this remains in the spotlight, the more unpopular it will become. We’re asking most of the country, who did not go to college, to bail out the most privileged who can or did. Sorry, that’s just not going to fly. Talk about wanting to inject steroids into our populist moment. Everyone sees who’s graduating from these liberal hell hole colleges. Frankly, college graduates need to quit whining, start working and get their salary histories going. And yes, it starts low, kids.

Maher quickly cut down this issue which is Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) pet issue while Paul Begala, a longtime Democratic Party strategist, added that his people do their best to piss off the working class (via TheBlaze): 

Bill Maher weighed in on student loan forgiveness – which he deemed as a “loser issue.” During the same episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” a notable Democratic strategist reamed out Democrats for being experts in “pissing off the working class.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has been the most vocal proponent of student loan cancelation – despite, at times, dodging logical questions about her proposal. However, two long-time, die-hard Democrats explained why student loan forgiveness is a “loser issue” during Friday night’s episode of “Real Time.”

“We who didn’t go to college and didn’t benefit from that are gonna subsidize you, to get your degree in gender studies and sports marketing and all the other bulls**t,” Maher said of the student loan forgiveness proposal.

Maher then declared, “I think it’s a loser issue.”

Begala then sarcastically sneered at his own party, “We Democrats have a lab, two labs actually, secret labs – one in Berkeley and one in Brooklyn, where we come up with ideas to completely piss off the working class, and it’s working wonderfully.”

Indeed. There are no working-class people in the Democratic Party anymore. It’s how a horrible idea like bailing out rich white woke liberals takes hold. Democrats rail about a bailout for Wall Street. Sure—I think I can share in that outrage, but a bailout for the whiny progressive slivers that are polluting the discourse in this country—no. Their bailouts are ok, they say. If there is one way to ensure the working class of America never votes Democratic again, maybe it’s with this college debt push. 


MAY 9, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


We briefly noted here the agricultural apocalypse occurring in Sri Lanka:

[W]here are the environmentalists in all this? They are doing their best to reduce agricultural output. In Sri Lanka, the government mandated organic farming, with the result that yields declined catastrophically, prices skyrocketed, and, no doubt, many died.

The London Times had a more detailed account last month, headlined: “How Sri Lanka’s shift to organic farming left it in the manure.”

What turned Sri Lanka’s economic situation from difficult to catastrophic was the decision by the Rajapaksa government to implement a nationwide ban on synthetic fertiliser. It was made not at the behest of neoliberal economists doing the bidding of global capital, but rather on the advice of environmentalists in the name of sustainable agriculture.
[T]hat strategy backfired in spectacular fashion. Domestic rice production fell by 14 per cent from 2021 to 2022, forcing the nation, long self-sufficient in rice production, to import hundreds of millions of dollars of rice and more than eroding all of the savings from ceasing fertiliser imports. On top of that, the ban decimated tea production, leading to a $425 million economic loss to the industry in its first six months of implementation. Tea, one of the nation’s primary crops, is a key source of its total export income, making a bad foreign exchange situation far worse.
Any competent agronomist could have predicted the result. And many did. Long-term use of synthetic fertilisers had helped Sri Lanka become not only food-secure but a major agricultural exporter. A survey of Sri Lanka’s farmers last July found that 75 per cent of them relied on synthetic fertilisers. For crops that are crucial sources of foreign currency and domestic food security — tea, rubber and rice — the dependence was even higher.
But the government ignored its own agricultural experts, instead convening representatives of the nation’s small organic sector to guide the nation’s agricultural policies. The result turned a bad situation into a disaster.

Food prices in Sri Lanka have quadrupled. One of the problems with environmentalists is that their prescriptions are often unmoored from reality. And yet they continue to get mostly good press around the world.

The latest from Sri Lanka is grim:

Sri Lanka’s prime minister resigned as protests over the country’s economic meltdown escalated into running battles in Colombo, troops on the streets and the death of a government MP.
Rajapaksa has been blamed for mismanaging the economy to the point where it went into freefall and Sri Lankans were unable to find food, milk, medicines or petrol as imports became scarce and prices rose by 300 per cent in a matter of months. Power cuts have been long and often.

It is hard to overstate how destructive contemporary environmentalism has been around the world. Here in the U.S., we haven’t seen the kind of economic collapse experienced by countries like Sri Lanka, but it isn’t because the greenies haven’t been trying.

Note: Try to remember the Dem thugs who raided our President Trump violently nearly every day in the general fascist public, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, colleges and universities from Atlantic to the Pacific, NANCY PELOSI AND CHARLIE SCHUMER LIE COOKINGS LAW CHARGES, PBS, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, ABC FROM MONDAY THROUGH SUNDAY WEEK AFTER WEEK, MONTH AFTER MONTH….AND THEN THE SWIPING OF THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION WHICH GAVE US FASCISTIC, BUT LOONY AND TUNIE CROOKED PRESIDENT BIDEN.