• 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

Hillary’s CORRUPT CAMPAIGN OF LIES May Punish Her After All!

Spygate Conspirators Start Selling Their Hoax To A Washington DC Jury, But The Facts Don’t Fit

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

MAY 18, 2022

Michael Sussmann at trial

On Tuesday, trial in United States v. Sussmann began. Michael Sussmann’s theory of defense has major factual holes.

Author Margot Cleveland profile


The Hillary Clinton campaign did not want its attorney, Michael Sussmann, to share the Alfa Bank data with the FBI, jurors were told yesterday during the defense’s opening arguments in the special counsel’s criminal case against Sussmann. But the information known to date, as well as the modus operandi of the Spygate players throughout the years they peddled the Russia-collusion hoax, render this argument laughable.

On Tuesday, trial in United States v. Sussmann began in earnest following a day of jury selection. At issue is whether the former Clinton campaign attorney lied to former FBI General Counsel James Baker when Sussmann provided him data and whitepapers purporting to show the existence of a secret-communications network between the Russian-based Alfa Bank and Donald Trump. Special Counsel John Durham’s team claims Sussmann lied when he shared the Alfa Bank “intel,” saying he wasn’t acting on behalf of a client, while, in fact, Sussmann represented both tech executive Rodney Joffe and the Clinton campaign.

Prosecutor Brittain Shaw set the stage for the jury, telling the 12 jurors and four alternates during opening argument that “Sussmann’s actions were part of ‘a plan to create an October surprise on the eve of a presidential election’ and to get the FBI to investigate, arguing the plan ‘largely succeeded.’”

Sussmann and Joffe “leaked the Alfa-Bank allegations to the New York Times,” Shaw continued, but “when that wasn’t published immediately, Sussmann brought a sense of urgency to the FBI about the media being on the verge of running a story.” According to prosecutors, “the FBI getting involved would make the story ‘more attractive’ to the press” and “Sussmann’s goal was to ‘inject’ the FBI into a presidential election.”

Not so, Sussmann’s lawyer Michael Bosworth countered, telling the jury in the defense’s opening argument that his client “had a genuine interest in national security” and was concerned about the data at a time when questions about Trump’s connections to Russia were swirling. According to Sussmann’s team, the Clinton campaign planned “to take this new weird thing public,” and they handed it to The New York Times. That’s what the campaign wanted—press coverage that hurt Trump and helped Clinton.

“The meeting with the FBI is the exact opposite of what the Clinton campaign would’ve wanted,” Bosworth told the jury, suggesting “the FBI quashed the news story after learning about it from Sussmann.” “The FBI meeting is something they didn’t authorize, they didn’t direct him to do, and they didn’t want him to do,” Sussmann’s lawyers argued. But once the Times was ready to publish the material, Sussmann called Baker “to help the FBI” “and warn them that a story was coming,” the defense claimed.

The evidence on all fronts suggests otherwise. First, emails exchanged between reporters and Peter Fritsch, a co-founder of the investigative research firm, Fusion GPS, that Perkins and Coie had hired on behalf of the Clinton campaign, indicate the Times was nowhere near “ready to publish the material” when Sussmann handed it off to Baker on September 19, 2016.

For instance, in one thread between Fritsch and the Times’ Eric Lichtblau, bearing the subject line “alfa and trump” and dated October 5, 2016, the duo were discussing Alfa Bank data published on Reddit, apparently by April Lorenzen. At that point, Fritsch is still telling the Times he has “no idea” where the material came from, but that “it’s either someone real who has real info or one of the donald’s 400 pounders,” whatever that meant. Fritsch then adds that the “de vos stuff looks rank to me,” in reference to the supposed communications between the Michigan health system’s computer and Alfa Bank.

Another email thread from October 18, 2016 also indicates the Times was not ready to publish the story. In that thread, Fritsch is pushing Reuter’s Mark Hosenball to run the Alfa Bank story. When Hosenball told him “the problem is that the nature of the data is way above my level of competence,” Fritsch responds, “it’s everyone’s problem” and then suggests he call David Dagon at Georgia Tech.

Then, on October 31, 2016, hours before Slate published the Alfa Bank story, in promoting the about-to-break news to Reuters, Fritsch wrote the “USG,” meaning the “United States government,” is “absolutely investigating.” This email shows Fusion GPS knew the value an FBI investigation added to a story it was pushing for the Clinton campaign.

A second problem with Sussmann’s storyline that the FBI meeting was “the exact opposite of what the Clinton campaign would’ve wanted” because it caused the government to quash the New York Times article flows from the fact Sussmann did not originally tell Baker the name of the outlet supposedly poised to publish the story.

In his congressional testimony, Baker explained that after he handed the Alfa Bank material off to the counterintelligence division, they wanted “more time to evaluate it before the media started publishing stuff.” According to Baker, agents asked him to “go back to Sussmann and find out who in the media is going to publish this because we might want to ask them to delay.”

In his testimony, Baker was fuzzy on the details and did not remember whether Sussmann had mentioned the media having the Alfa Bank material during their initial September 19, 2016, meeting or only later during a follow-up conversation. (If the latter, that will really throw a wrench in Sussmann’s theory of defense.)

What Baker stated unequivocally, however, was that Sussmann had not originally identified The New York Times as the outlet supposedly ready to run the story, and that it was only later when Baker followed up with Sussmann that they learned that fact. The FBI then “went to the New York Times” and “started a series of conversations with them to try to get them to slow down,” he said.

If Sussmann’s goal were truly to provide the FBI with a heads-up of the impending story, as his attorneys argued yesterday, he accomplished that objective on September 19, 2016. To achieve that goal, Sussmann would have no reason to answer Baker’s follow-up question concerning the name of the media outlet ready with the Alfa Bank story. In fact, as a lawyer, he would have a good reason to refuse: It was in the Clinton campaign’s interest for the story to run.

But if Sussmann instead sought to spur the media into action, sending the FBI into the arms of The New York Times proved a perfect plan, as it made the Alfa Bank story more marketable.

Here, we see a third problem with Sussmann’s line of defense: From the Steele dossier to the FISA surveillance of Carter Page, the Clinton campaign repeatedly fed the FBI and U.S. intelligence agencies supposed “intel” on Trump, which it also peddled to the press. Then it used leaks of the government’s investigation into Trump’s supposed connections with Russia to drive more media coverage of the Russia collusion story.

Yet Sussmann’s legal team told the jury the FBI meeting was something the Clinton campaign “didn’t authorize,” “didn’t direct him to do” and “didn’t want him to do.” That line of argument presents prosecutors with the perfect opening to inform the jury of the Clinton campaign’s modus operandi, and it will likely do so with the questioning of Sussmann’s former legal partner Marc Elias, who is scheduled to testify later today.

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.

Confusion In Biden City!

MAY 18, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


Today is offering a surfeit of feel-good news, but this one came in too late for the pervious post. The Washington Post is just up with the breaking story that the Biden Administration has decided to “pause” (but almost certainly shut down) the mis-named “Disinformation Governance Board”:

Just three weeks after its announcement, the Disinformation Governance Board is being “paused,” according to multiple employees at DHS, capping a back-and-forth week of decisions that changed during the course of reporting of this story. On Monday, DHS decided to shut down the board, according to multiple people with knowledge of the situation. By Tuesday morning, Jankowicz had drafted a resignation letter in response to the board’s dissolution.

But Tuesday night, Jankowicz was pulled into an urgent call with DHS officials who gave her the choice to stay on, even as the department’s work was put on hold because of the backlash it faced, according to multiple people with knowledge of the call. Working groups within DHS focused on mis-, dis- and mal-information have been suspended. The board could still be shut down pending a review from the Homeland Security Advisory Council; Jankowicz is evaluating her position within the department.

Do notice, however, the way the Post frames the matter in their headline up right now:

Another case where the story isn’t Democrats screwing up with an epic bad idea, but the right wing “pouncing” on the mistake. This paragraph is especially delicious:

Jankowicz’s experience is a prime example of how the right-wing Internet apparatus operates, where far-right influencers attempt to identify a target, present a narrative and then repeat mischaracterizations across social media and websites with the aim of discrediting and attacking anyone who seeks to challenge them. It also shows what happens when institutions, when confronted with these attacks, don’t respond effectively.

And “experts”—the mainstream media’s favorite sources for their ventriloquist journalism—show up for duty:

Experts say that right-wing disinformation and smear campaigns regularly follow the same playbook and that it’s crucial that the public and leaders of institutions, especially in the government, the media and educational bodies, understand more fully how these cycles operate.

Musk Still Worships “Hate America Man Obama”

Elon Musk rips Biden as the Anchorman president on the teleprompter

by KAREN TOWNSEND May 17, 2022 at HotAir:


(AP Photo/Kiichiro Sato, File)

Elon Musk is piggybacking on Jeff Bezos this week in slamming Joe Biden’s failure to properly address the problems of inflation, as well as other areas of his presidency. The world’s two richest people are not Joe Biden fans, at least not right now.

Ed wrote about the kerfuffle between Bezos and Biden via Twitter. The president’s new press secretary couldn’t explain a tweet posted on Biden’s official Twitter account that calls for “the wealthiest corporations” to “pay their fair share.”


To be fair to Ms. Jean-Pierre, no one can make sense of that tweet, certainly not her. She’s a diversity hire and hyper partisan Democrat who must gaslight voters on Biden’s performance as president. Hiking corporate taxes doesn’t bring inflation down. As Musk pointed out, when the government is printing money non-stop and issuing checks in the trillions of dollars for the American Rescue Plan and COVID-19 relief as the economy is trying to recover from a pandemic, inflation happens. Biden, of course, refuses to admit his bone-headed decision led to where we are now and he sure doesn’t show any knowledge on what to do to correct the course of the economy. So, here we are. Musk said it’s all so obvious.

“I mean, the obvious reason for inflation is that the government printed a zillion amount of more money than it had, obviously,” Musk said, echoing Republican critics who claim that Biden’s American Rescue Plan COVID-19 relief stimulus bill contributed to the near-40-year-high inflation the U.S. experienced in April.

“So it’s like the government can’t just, you know, issue checks far in excess of revenue without there being inflation, you know, velocity of money held constant,” the Tesla CEO argued. “If the federal government writes checks, they never bounce. So that is effectively creation of more dollars. And if there are more dollars created, then the increase in the goods and services across the economy, then you have inflation, again, velocity of money held constant.”

Musk insisted that “this is just very basic” and “not like, you know, super complicated.”

“If the government could just issue massive amounts of money and deficits didn’t matter, then, well, why don’t we just make the deficit 100 times bigger? The answer is, you can’t because it will basically turn the dollar into something that is worthless,” he noted.

He’s right. Even though Musk says he has voted “overwhelmingly for Democrats,” he sure is sounding like a Republican these days. Democrats want to keep shoveling trillions of dollars out the door and it is up to Republican lawmakers to do what they can to stop it. Musk points to what can happen if corrections are not made – the United States will turn into Venezuela.

Venezuela’s inflation reached a staggering 65,374.08% in 2018 amid an economic spiral beginning with government price controls and plummeting oil prices. The government started printing money to cope, and prices skyrocketed, unemployment increased, and GDP collapsed.

“So obviously you can’t simply create money,” Musk said. He emphasized “the true economy,” by which he meant “the output of goods and services,” as opposed to mere money.

The real stinger during this podcast interview with Musk was when he referenced “Anchorman” as he spoke about Biden’s inability to lead. He used the example of the president’s stumbling and bumbling while reading the teleprompter. “The real president is whoever controls the teleprompter,” the Tesla CEO said. “The path to power is the path to the teleprompter.” Musk said that Biden will read anything off the teleprompter, just like the Ron Burgundy character in the movie “Anchorman”. Biden is the Anchorman president. Only it’s not funny to those of us who watch our dazed and confused president stumble through a speech off the teleprompter as the movie was to its audience. Biden’s speeches are in real life and it’s scary as hell.

Musk noted that by all appearances, the Biden administration doesn’t get much done. He said that there were a lot of people in the previous administration who could be effective in getting things done, “leaving aside Trump.” Musk is right again. Trump concentrated on surrounding himself with a cabinet full of business men and leaders, not diversity hires who were put in power because they checked the right identity boxes. Biden has a cabinet full of people who are clueless to do their jobs. Look no further than Biden’s vice-president or, for example, Mayor Pete as transportation secretary. C’mon. Mayor Pete couldn’t handle leading a city of 100,000 people, much less a bloated federal agency. But, he’s the first gay transportation secretary, or something. Thanks, Joe.

We shouldn’t get too excited over Musk’s criticism of Biden, though. He still sings the praises of Obama. He blasts Democrats for being too beholden to unions and trial attorneys (except Obama) and he points the finger at Republicans for being influenced by “corporate evil and religious zealotry.” He’s an equal opportunity political critic. When he gets it right, his words should be taken with a healthy grain of salt.

Getting banned from Twitter would also distinguish “MUSK” as Republican at heart.

Musk: For the first time, I’m voting Republican

ALLAHPUNDIT May 17, 2022 at HotAir:

Yeah, there’s a lot of that going around lately.

In the race between Bill Maher and Joe Rogan to see which outspoken liberal will be the first to be fully red-pilled, it turns out the winner is … Elon Musk.

We should have seen it coming. How many Democratic voters worry that Twitter is too left-wing?


Which side’s media greeted Musk’s offer to buy Twitter as a day of liberation and which received the news as akin to “the last evening in a Berlin nightclub at the twilight of Weimar Germany”? That should have been another clue which way he’s leaning these days.

About that day of liberation, though. Ed wrote earlier about Musk’s latest complaint, that Twitter supposedly hasn’t been forthcoming about the number of spam bots on the site. Bloomberg’s Matt Levine makes a compelling case that that’s the purest of BS, beginning with the fact that one of the reasons Musk gave when he announced his offer for Twitter was that the site supposedly needed new leadership to … clean up all the spam bots.

Levine thinks he’s trying to welsh on the deal. His offer price of $54.20 per share seems too high now that various tech stocks, including Twitter and Tesla, have tanked over the past month. Musk’s alleged concern about bots reeks of a nonfinancial excuse to walk away now that he’s overextended. And there are no good remedies for Twitter if he does, Levine writes. If they renegotiate a lower price with him, he could duck out on that new deal just like he’s trying to duck out on the current one. If they sue to make him pay a termination fee, his loss is capped at $1 billion, a relative pittance for both sides. If they sue to try to *force* him to complete the purchase at the originally agreed upon price, well … even the courts may struggle to get Elon Musk to play by the rules.

Twitter can do what he actually wants, which is renegotiate the deal at a lower price. But what good will that do? What does Twitter get from signing a new merger agreement with him at, say, $42 per share? He has not lived up to any of his agreements with Twitter — the standstill, the non-disparagement clause of the merger agreement, apparently a nondisclosure agreement, the merger agreement itself — and he’s not going to live up to a repriced merger agreement unless he feels like it. An agreement with Elon Musk is worthless, as Twitter has learned over and over again…

The agreement does, however, allow Twitter to sue for “specific performance,” meaning that it can go to a Delaware court and ask a judge to order Musk to close the deal (and fund his $27.5 billion equity commitment). But this is tough and there is no guarantee it will work. Specific performance is only possible if Musk’s debt financing is available, which seems likely but not certain, and if a judge is willing to order it. On the one hand, Musk’s lawlessness and bad faith will probably annoy a judge and make her more likely to specifically enforce the merger agreement. On the other hand, Musk’s lawlessness and bad faith might worry a Delaware judge and make her less likely to specifically enforce the merger agreement. It is bad, for the rule of law generally and for confidence in Delaware corporate law in particular, if Musk blatantly ignores a merger agreement and a judge lets him get away with it. But it’s even worse if a court orders him to close and he ignores the order. Musk has a history of ignoring court orders and getting away with it.

Refusing to honor his contractual obligations is another thing that points to Musk being a modern Republican considering who leads the party nowadays.

Levine thinks the most effective way Twitter can punish him if he leaves them in the lurch would be to simply ban him from the platform. He has 93 million followers and has used his social media presence shrewdly to promote Tesla and SpaceX. Booting him off of Twitter really would hurt him in a way that some paltry billion-dollar termination fee wouldn’t.

Come to think of it, getting banned from Twitter would also distinguish him as Republican at heart. Imagine how magical it’ll be when he opens an account at Truth Social and he and Trump begin flaming each other.

Or maybe he’ll start his own social media platform? If anyone could muster the technology and hype needed to make a new Twitter rival an instant success, it’s Elon Musk.

In lieu of an exit question, I’ll leave you with this. I don’t know if Rogan’s a left-wing populist or a right-wing populist but he’s certainly a populist.

Those Clintons and The Biden Crowd Since, HAVE HAD NO INTEREST IN TRUTH!!

MAY 17, 2022 BY STEVEN HAYWARD at PowerLine:


I’m so old I can remember Bill Clinton blaming the 1995 Oklahoma bombing on Rush Limbaugh. Heck, I’m so old I can recall MSNBC and the rest of the leftist hive mind blaming the 2011 shooting of Rep. Gabby Giffords on Sarah Palin, when 30 seconds of observation showed clearly the shooter was severely mentally ill. Oh, wait—you don’t need to be old for that: the New York Times repeated that outrageous slur in an editorial just four years ago—now the subject of a much-deserved libel suit from Palin.

Actually this is the left’s oldest playbook, and it hasn’t gotten any less stale than it was in the aftermath of that November 1963 day in Dallas, when the left blamed JFK’s assassin on a “climate of right-wing hate” in Texas, despite the obvious fact that Kennedy’s killer was a dedicated Communist. (See Camelot and the Cultural Revolution for the complete story.) Keep in mind that the left, including high government officials in the Kennedy administration, had been braying for several years that the principal threat to the nation was the “radical right,” and especially those little old ladies in tennis shoe bombs in the John Birch Society.

If you doubt this, go look up the paranoid report of California’s attorney general Stanley Mosk. You could reprint the Mosk report today with just one small change: swap out “John Birch Society” with “January 6 insurrectionists” and you’re good to go. Meanwhile, within a decade of the left’s panic over the “radical right,” a wave of bombings swept the nation—all of them carried out by radical leftists.

You didn’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the left would blame the Buffalo shooter on Tucker Carlson (since Rush isn’t around to blame any more), without having taken the trouble to read the “manifesto” the shooter left behind. Like so many similar manifestos from other mass killers in the past, it is incoherent and contradictory, and fair-minded people will discern a mixture of mental illness and an embrace of “extremism” that is not distinctly ideological in any serious way. (Extremism isn’t necessarily ideological in any consistent fashion, but this is an issue for another day. But read the last third of Max Weber’s “Politics as a Vocation” for insight on this point.)

Anyone remember the Unabomber’s manifesto in the late 1990s, which spawned the internet parlor game of comparing the Unabomber’s manifesto to Al Gore’s Earth in the Balance? The similarities were embarrassing for the Veep. (The FBI has never confirmed or denied rumors that a marked up copy of Gore’s book was found in the Unabomber’s shack.) Alston Chase argued persuasively in A Mind for Murder that Ted Kaczynski’s manifesto was derived from what he was taught at Harvard around the same time Gore was a student. Is Harvard to blame for the Unabomber’s rampage? If an eco-warrior blows up a pipeline or oil refinery, can we blame Greta Thunberg? (If you’re interested in a more serious treatment of the defects of Al Gore’s radical metaphysics, see this old piece from . . . me.)

Finally, the central focus of outrage from the left that right now operates in a 24/7 mode of  calling all white Americans racist is something called the “Replacement Theory,” that is, a self-conscious design of the left to have “people of color” come to outnumber whites, and who will provide a permanent majority for the Democratic Party. It is said to be “Republican Party orthodoxy.” Where could Republicans have gotten such a crazy idea?

Maybe here:

Of course, many of the “people of color” that Democrats think they own as naturally as they once owned black people are starting to defect, such as hispanics and Asians. . . If anyone needs replacing, it’s our sick leftists.

That Disney Affair….Imposing Gender Ideology In Florida!

Laying Siege to the Institutions

Christopher F. Rufo at IMPRIMIS:

Founder and Director, Battlefront

The following is adapted from a speech delivered at Hillsdale College on April 5, 2022, during a two-week teaching residency at Hillsdale as a Pulliam Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Journalism.

Why do I say that we need to lay siege to our institutions? Because of what has happened to our institutions since the 1960s.

The 1960s saw the rise of new and radical ideologies in America that now seem commonplace—ideologies based on ideas like identity politics and cultural revolution. There is a direct line between those ideas born in the ’60s and the public policies being adopted today in leftist-run cities like Seattle, San Francisco, and Chicago. 

The leftist dream of a working-class rebellion in America fizzled after the ’60s. By the mid-1970s, radical groups like the Black Liberation Army and the Weather Underground had faded from prominence. But the leftist dreamers didn’t give up. Abandoning hope of a Russian-style revolution, they settled on a more sophisticated strategy—waging a revolution not of the proletariat, but of the elites, and specifically of the knowledge elites. It would proceed not by taking over the means of production, but by taking control of education and culture—a strategy that German Marxist Rudi Dutschke, a student activist in the 1960s, called “the long march through the institutions.” 

This idea is traceable to Italian communist Antonio Gramsci, who wrote in the 1930s of “capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches, and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.”

This march through our institutions, begun a half-century ago, has now proved largely successful. Over the past two years, I’ve looked at the federal bureaucracy, the universities, K-12 schools, and big corporations. And what I’ve found is that the revolutionary ideas of the ’60s have been repackaged, repurposed, and injected into American life at the institutional level.

Most Americans are shocked to discover this. We’ve all seen the outrage of parents over the past two years as they learned that their young children were being divided according to their skin color and deemed oppressed or oppressors in public school classrooms. Parents began expressing their outrage against critical race theory not only in school board meetings, but at the polls. This made big news in last year’s gubernatorial election in Virginia, and the demographic of the now-widespread voter rebellion shows that it crosses party lines. 

The Case of the Disney Company

There has been a similar response following the more recent revelations about the Walt Disney Company—a company founded 99 years ago and associated in the public mind with wholesome family entertainment. 

I’ve been reporting on Disney for more than a year, and I have good sources inside the company. I broke a story last year about Disney forcing employees to engage in a critical race theory training program that denounced America as fundamentally racist, had its white employees complete a “white privilege checklist,” and included exercises on “decolonizing” bookshelves.

Disney’s first reaction was to deflect. In response to accusations of racism, the company issued a press release denying the charge. Incredibly, it offered as proof the fact that it had produced the movie Black Panther—a kind of corporate variation on “I’m not racist, some of my best friends are black.” This ridiculous response suggests that Disney executives were caught totally off guard. The elites who run our institutions, after all, are not accustomed to being challenged.

Disney eventually deleted information on the controversial training program from its internal website. But all things remaining the same, the program will resurface. This wasn’t, after all, a case of well-intentioned people making a mistake. Leftist ideologies are now baked into the structures of these institutions.

A much bigger controversy began when the Disney Company waded into a political fight with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. DeSantis had signed a bill, passed by the state legislature, that prohibited teaching about gender ideology, sexual orientation, and sexuality in kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade classrooms. Despite the fact that its opponents gave this bill an intentionally misleading name—the “Don’t Say Gay” bill—it is supported, depending on the questions used by pollsters, by between 60 and 80 percent of Floridians. 

Acting against its own apparent business interest, Disney—the most famous children’s entertainment corporation in history—came out publicly in opposition to this bill banning discussions of gender identity in elementary classrooms prior to the fourth grade. In an official statement, it declared that the company’s goal was “for this law to be repealed . . . or struck down in the courts.” 

Shortly thereafter, my sources at Disney leaked a video to me of an hour-and-40-minute company-wide meeting about the controversy. And what did the video reveal? In a series of unedited clips that I released on social media, an executive producer at Disney said that she had been inserting what she called a “not-so-secret gay agenda” into children’s programming, targeting kids as young as two years old, and had experienced no pushback. A production coordinator said that he had created a tracking program to make sure that the company was including enough transgender, non-binary, and asexual characters. The president of Disney’s general entertainment content referenced a Disney initiative declaring that “50 percent of regular and recurring characters across Disney General Entertainment will come from underrepresented groups.” And a diversity and inclusion manager talked about the company’s new policy of doing away with the terms “ladies and gentlemen” and “boys and girls” at Disney theme parks.

These discussions weren’t taking place in an Ivy League faculty lounge, but among high-level executives at Walt Disney. Americans were shocked, and rightfully so. The unmistakable gist of the video was that Disney was secretly trying to change, in a fundamental way, how children think about sexuality by engineering a narrative based on gender ideology.

Disney executives had marched into this controversy beating their chests, talking trash to Governor DeSantis, and committing the company to the overthrow of the bill protecting young children. But the leaked videos quickly generated over 100 million media impressions, and with public opinion heavily on the other side—not only in Florida, but nationwide—Disney was pummeled. People started canceling their subscriptions to Disney’s streaming service, canceling planned trips to Disney theme parks, canceling Disney cruises, and thinking twice about letting their children watch Disney movies. 

Elected officials noticed, too. The Florida legislature and Governor DeSantis have already revoked the special governance and tax status Disney has enjoyed since the 1960s. Disney’s stock value plummeted nearly $50 billion in less than two months. And now Members of Congress are asking why Disney deserves automatic copyright extensions on things like Mickey Mouse—copyrights that customarily have a 28-year limit. If Congress lets Disney’s various copyrights expire next year, it will cost Disney additional multiple billions of dollars.

Doing further research into Disney’s track record regarding children and sexual predators, by the way, I discovered that the company has a notorious pattern, going back over a decade, of having a significant number of its employees arrested for child sex crimes such as child pornography, child exploitation, and child rape. And although a company can’t be held responsible for everything its employees do on their own time, I was able to find two cases of Disney complicity. In the first, Disney authorities allegedly told a Disney security guard to keep her mouth shut when she discovered that a Disney employee was molesting a young boy on a Disney cruise ship. This allowed the employee to evade arrest, after which Disney flew him back home to India so he couldn’t be held accountable. In the other case, I found that the cruise trade association of which Disney is a member had opposed and then helped water down legislation that would have required Disney and other cruise lines to report sexual abuse on their cruise ships in a timely manner.

In summary, Disney’s record on the issue of children and sexuality casts doubt on its claim to moral authority.


The lesson I’ve drawn from reporting on institutions that promote ideologies such as critical race theory and radical gender theory is that they have been captured at the structural level and can’t be reformed from within. So the solution is not a long counter-march through the institutions. You can’t replace bad directors of diversity, equity, and inclusion with good ones. The ideology is baked in. That’s why I call for a siege strategy.

This means, first, that you have to be aggressive. You have to fight on terms that you define. In responding to opponents of the Florida bill, for instance, don’t argue against “teaching diversity and inclusion,” but against sexualizing young children. And don’t pull your punches. We will never win if we play by the rules set by the elites who are undermining our country. We can be polite and lose every battle or we can be impolite and actually deliver results for the great majority of Americans who are fighting for their small businesses, fighting for their jobs, fighting for their families.

Second, you have to mobilize popular support. This requires ripping the veil off of what our institutions are doing through real investigation and reporting so that Americans can make informed choices. We live in an information society, and if we don’t get the truth out, we will never gain traction against the narratives being constantly refashioned and pushed by the Left. 

Less than two years ago, an infinitesimal number of Americans knew about critical race theory. Through investigation and reporting, we’ve brought that number up to 75 percent. The public now opposes critical race theory by a two-to-one margin, and it is being hounded out of schools and other places. This kind of action is a model for dealing with every ideology and institution that is undermining the public good and America’s future.

Remember that institutions don’t choose these ideologies democratically—they don’t ask people or employees to vote for them. They impose them by fiat, through bureaucratic, not democratic rule. So it isn’t surprising that the institutions lose big when we force their agendas into the political arena. What politician or campaign manager in their right mind would ignore an issue that is supported by a two-to-one margin? So-called conservative politicians who do ignore such issues—or who oppose bringing them up out of a false sense of decorum—aren’t on the people’s and the country’s side. 

With public institutions like K-12 education, another crucial step is to decentralize them. It is centralization and bureaucratization that makes it possible for a minority of activists to take control and impose their ideologies. Decentralizing means reducing federal and state controls in favor of local control—and it ultimately means something like universal school choice, placing power in parents’ hands. Too many parents today have no escape mechanism from substandard schools controlled by leftist ideologues. Universal school choice—meaning that public education funding goes directly to parents rather than schools—would fix that.

Conservatives have for too long been resistant to attacking the credibility of our institutions. Trust in institutions is a natural conservative tendency. But conservatives need to stop focusing on abstract concepts and open their eyes. Our institutions are dragging our country in a disastrous direction, actively undermining all that makes America great.

To some extent, the institutions are now destroying their own credibility. Look at the public health bureaucracy and teachers’ unions, which acted in concert to shut down schools and keep children needlessly masked—and for far too long. As a result, there has been an explosion in homeschooling, as well as in the number of alternative K-12 schools such as the ones Hillsdale College is helping to launch around the country. What is needed is to build alternative or parallel institutions and businesses in all areas. There is no reason, for example, why plenty of high production value children’s entertainment can’t be produced outside the ideological confines of the Walt Disney Company.

In conclusion, we make a mistake in thinking about politics simply in terms of a Left versus Right dynamic. That dynamic is significant, but where the opportunity really lies today is focusing on a top versus bottom dynamic. An elite class, representing a small number of people with influence in the knowledge-based institutions, are acting in their own interest and against the interest of the vast majority of the American people—those who are still attached to the idea that America is a force for good and who think, to take just one example, that young children should be protected from the imposition of radical gender ideology.

In terms of the top versus bottom dynamic, the choice today is between the American Revolution of 1776 and the leftist revolution of the 1960s. The first offers a continued unfolding of America’s founding principles of freedom and equality. The second ends up in nihilism and demoralization, just as the Weather Underground ended up in a bombed-out basement in Greenwich Village in the 1970s. 

Even those of us who are temperamentally predisposed to defense must recognize that offense—laying siege to the institutions—is what is now demanded.

There Were Gas Wars In The 1950s AS LOW AS 19 CENTS PER GALLON IN MINNESOTA!

The Average U.S. Gas Price Just Passed $4.50 Per Gallon In Demoralizing New Record


MAY 17, 2022

Gas Price sign Chevron

The record-breaking prices will soon cause ripple effects across the economy, with spikes in transportation and manufacturing costs

Author Tristan Justice profile

TRISTAN JUSTICE at the Federalist:

Gas prices for diesel and regular unleaded reached new records on Tuesday as they continue an upward trajectory before Memorial Day, hitting unseen highs near daily.

According to AAA’s gas price tracker, the average cost for a gallon of regular is running at $4.52 nationwide, and diesel at $5.57. Gas prices are highest in California, where residents are now paying an average of more than $6 per gallon statewide. Kansas residents are seeing the cheapest gas at $4 per gallon.

The record-breaking prices will soon cause ripple effects across the economy, with spikes in transportation and manufacturing costs being passed onto consumers who are already battling record inflation. According to the Department of Labor, April’s inflation numbers revealed the highest year-over-year increase in four decades, rising 8.3 percent last month compared to the same time last year.

Despite the rising prices upending the nation’s pandemic recovery, President Joe Biden has only doubled down on his anti-American-energy agenda with cancellations of new oil and gas leases to keep domestic production low. Data from the Department of Commerce published in April revealed that the U.S. economy experienced negative GDP growth in the first quarter, potentially marking the first stages of a recession after GDP remained positive since mid-2020.

Last week, CBS News revealed that the Biden administration quietly canceled more drilling projects across the country, from Alaska to the Gulf of Mexico, even as gas prices rose to new heights. While the Department of the Interior announced it would resume lease sales to drill on public lands this year, the White House is dragging its feet while the agency offered only 20 percent of the lands initially nominated for production. The Interior Department also announced a 50 percent spike in royalty fees from what’s extracted, a rise in costs that’s ultimately paid for by consumers at the pump.

The White House resumed oil and gas leases on public lands only after a federal judge ordered the government to do so, invalidating Biden’s indefinite suspension that he signed on his first day in office.

“President Biden remains absolutely committed to not moving forward with additional drilling on public lands,” White House climate adviser Gina McCarthy pledged on MSNBC shortly after Interior announced new leases.


Biden has looked to the nation’s emergency strategic petroleum reserves to artificially suppress gas prices ahead of the November midterms, as antagonized voters are poised to hand Democrats a major blow in an election cycle that’s historically hostile to the president’s party. Last month, Biden announced an “unprecedented” release from the oil reserves of 1 million barrels per day into the market, with no plans for replenishment.

Despite the release beginning on Sunday, gas prices have reached new peaks each day.


Tristan Justice is the western correspondent for The Federalist. He has also written for The Washington Examiner and The Daily Signal. His work has also been featured in Real Clear Politics and Fox News. Tristan graduated from George Washington University where he majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow him on Twitter at @JusticeTristan or contact him at Tristan@thefederalist.com.