• 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

PELOSI! The DEMS’ Joseph McCarthy!

BREAKING: Pelosi’s archbishop orders her to stop receiving communion over abortion; Update: Napa bishop concurs

ED MORRISSEY May 20, 2022

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

Begun, the Eucharist Wars have. Exercising his authority as prelate of San Francisco, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone proclaimed that Nancy Pelosi’s support for unlimited abortion at all stages of gestation prevents her from legitimately receiving communion in the Catholic Church. Cordileone demanded that Pelosi repudiate and repent for “the grave evil she is perpetrating.”

Will she comply, or will Pelosi try to pick a fight at the altar?

Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi’s position on abortion has become only more extreme over the years, especially in the last few months. Just earlier this month she once again, as she has many times before, explicitly cited her Catholic faith while justifying abortion as a “choice,” this time setting herself in direct opposition to Pope Francis: “The very idea that they would be telling women the size, timing or whatever of their family, the personal nature of this is so appalling, and I say that as a devout Catholic”; “They say to me, ‘Nancy Pelosi thinks she knows more about having babies than the Pope.’ Yes I do. Are you stupid?”[4]

After numerous attempts to speak with her to help her understand the grave evil she is perpetrating, the scandal she is causing, and the danger to her own soul she is risking, I have determined that the point has come in which I must make a public declaration that she is not to be admitted to Holy Communion unless and until she publicly repudiate her support for abortion “rights” and confess and receive absolution for her cooperation in this evil in the sacrament of Penance. I have accordingly sent her a Notification to this effect, which I have now made public.

Please know that I find no pleasure whatsoever in fulfilling my pastoral duty here. Speaker Pelosi remains our sister in Christ. Her advocacy for the care of the poor and vulnerable elicits my admiration. I assure you that my action here is purely pastoral, not political. I have been very clear in my words and actions about this. Speaker Pelosi has been uppermost in my prayer intentions ever since I became the Archbishop of San Francisco. It was my prayer life that motivated me to ask people all around the country to join me in praying and fasting for her in the “Rose and Rosary for Nancy Campaign.” I especially pray that she will see in the roses she has received a sign of the honest love and care that many thousands of people have for her.

If this looks like a shot out of the blue, it’s not — not even in the acute sense. These issues have percolated at the episcopal level in the US for years, and came to a head after Joe Biden won the 2020 election. The USCCB spent a lot of time debating amongst themselves and then with the Vatican over whether to make the same kind of edict on abortion regarding Biden. The Vatican pressed the bishops to stay out of politics, and they opted to do a broader but more ambiguous statement on maintaining worthiness to receive the Eucharist instead.

Of course, at that time neither Congress nor Biden were promoting a bill that would effectively remove any restrictions on abortion at any time in a pregnancy, too. The House passed such a bill recently and Chuck Schumer tried to push it through the Senate, including a provision that would have excluded any resort to religious objections for providers to performing abortion. That push to radically expand abortions across the United States appears to have been the last straw for Cordileone.

But what about the USCCB and the Vatican? Cordileone doesn’t mention either of them in his letter, and it’s unclear whether he coordinated this decision with one, both, or neither. As prelate, Cordileone has the authority to make this decision, but Pope Francis has the authority to reassign Cordileone if he acts in a way contrary to the pontiff’s leadership, too. It will be quite interesting to see what actions Francis and the USCCB take in regard to this form of enforcement of doctrine and canon law [see update].

Equally interesting will be what happens the next time Pelosi goes for communion. Will the priests of the archdiocese comply and refuse her access to the Eucharist? They’d better or else they might find themselves in serious breach of their oath to faithfully serve their bishop, from whom their authority to act as priests originates.  Also, what happens when Pelosi goes to Mass elsewhere — especially in Washington DC? Technically, Cordileone’s writ only runs to the boundaries of the archdiocese. Will Cardinal Wilton Gregory honor that declaration?

The National Catholic Register argues that Cordileone’s declaration is in full consonance with Pope Francis’ teachings and writings on canon law:

In fact, Archbishop Cordileone’s measure is in many ways inspired by Pope Francis, to whom he makes frequent reference in his letters to Speaker Pelosi, archdiocesan priests, and the San Francisco faithful. Particularly noteworthy is that the archbishop’s decision flows in part from Pope Francis’s recent revision of Book VI of the Code of Canon Law, the Church’s legislation on penal sanction, promulgated in Pascite Gregem Dei. Although Archbishop Cordileone is not issuing a penal sanction on Speaker Pelosi, and is instead making a public declaration that she is “obstinately preserving in manifest grave sin” according to canon 915, he says that the Pope’s revisions to canon law emphasizes the importance of “insuring the integrity of the Church’s sacramental life.” For instance, the canon punishes by suspension one who “administers a sacrament to those who are prohibited from receiving it.”

The takeaway is that Pope Francis’ pastoral example is not that no one should ever be denied communion, as some will likely falsely claim. Instead, it’s that bishops should make such decisions as pastors, not as politicians. And again, it seems like that’s what’s happened in San Francisco.

If nothing else, this is a sign from at least one bishop that extreme activism for abortions has consequences in the Catholic Church. Momentarily, at least. Stay tuned for updates.

Update: A friend corrects me on two points. First, Cordileone’s authority only extends to the boundaries of his archdiocese, so Cardinal Gregory could choose not to enforce this. Second, Pelosi is eligible for all other sacraments as this is a disciplinary matter and not a canon crime, so to speak, so it was inaccurate to call this a de facto excommunication. I’ve changed the text above.

Update: Pelosi has a second home in Santa Rosa, and the bishop there plans to honor Cordileone’s declaration. The Pillar got that scoop:

Bishop Robert Vasa of the Diocese of Santa Rosa told The Pillar May 20 he has instructed priests to observe the decision of Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone when Pelosi attends Mass at the parish nearby her Napa Valley vacation home and vineyard.

“I have visited with the pastor at [Pelosi’s parish] and informed him that if the Archbishop prohibited someone from receiving Holy Communion then that restriction followed the person and that the pastor was not free to ignore it,” Vasa said in a statement provided to The Pillar by the Santa Rosa diocese.

Cardinal Gregory has yet to comment.

Update: Gloria Purvis at America Magazine asked about excommunication, but Cordileone wants to approach this in such a way as to leave room for sincere repentance:

G.P.: You’re the first bishop that I can think of to make a statement like this—other than, in most recent memory, I’m thinking of Archbishop Rummel of New Orleans, who actually went a step further and excommunicated people for interfering in his authority as a bishop to desegregate. Why not excommunicate her?

A.C.: First of all, I’m actually not the first bishop to do this. I was a new bishop back in the early 2000s when then-Bishop Burke of La Crosse, right before he moved to St. Louis, issued such a notification with regard to Catholic legislators in his diocese. Also the then-Father [Kevin] Vann, who’s now Bishop Vann of Orange, he was the pastor in a parish in Springfield, Ill., that was a parish of Dick Durbin. [He] spoke with him and advised him he should not be receiving Communion. The bishop of the diocese at that time, then-Bishop [George] Lucas, now-Archbishop Lucas of Omaha, backed him up. The current bishop there, Bishop Tom Paproki, has reaffirmed that. Also Archbishop Joseph Noumann of Kansas City, Kan., took this action with regard to Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas at the time.

So other bishops have taken this action, but excommunication has a whole other set of considerations. It’s more severe; I don’t want to take a more severe tack if I don’t have to. I’d rather do the minimum I need to do in order to repair the scandal.

Cordileone wrote a lengthy essay in the Washington Post last September detailing some of this history. Keep that handy for when the media attacks Cordileone for acting in a radical and/or unprecedented manner.


Biden’s America Rots from the Head Down

By J.B. Shurk at American Thinker:

Perhaps no head of state before Joe Biden has so completely personified the maritime proverb that the fish rots from the head down.  In both deed and physical decay, he is that putrefying rancidness wafting from where offal is tossed near the dock whose ability to trigger the gag reflexes of unsuspecting travelers seems the perfect metaphor for this nauseating moment in American history.  Not only is Joe’s walking corpse a fitting symbol for a country that has never looked more debilitated, but the reality (ignored by the State’s slavishly devoted press corps) that his cognitive acuity is plummeting so fast that terminal velocity was reached long ago drives the point home that the head of our head of state is rotting, too.

When Biden’s handlers sent him to Buffalo, New York, to exploit a mass murder by blaming conservatives, liberty-lovers, Trump Republicans, Fox News, and just about anybody to the right of Karl Marx for a crime whose perpetrator didn’t even merit the faux-president’s direct condemnation, angry, spiteful Joe Biden showed just what a miserable, acidic, revolting excuse for a human being he’s always been.  A real president would have mourned the dead, comforted the survivors, consoled the grieving, and united Americans through the common bonds of their humanity.  But Joe Biden is no real president, so he both dishonored the solemnity of the occasion and betrayed his sacred duty to elevate the nation’s welfare over the interests of his party’s political power.  With an outstretched, bony finger good for nothing now but casting blame, he tarnished the tragedy with petty partisanship, rebuffed the nation’s need for grace, befouled what should have been dignified, and withered further the civic sinews barely binding Americans together as one nation.  Biden’s moment in Buffalo was disgraceful.

I know Republicans such as Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham love to tell stories about how charming and friendly the Great Mental Void from Delaware has always been, but you can’t spew such filthy, spiteful rhetoric as Biden did in Buffalo without having a dark and rotten soul.  This is who Joe Biden has been all his wretched life.  When he wasn’t stealing other people’s words for his own use or orchestrating Justice Thomas’s “high-tech lynching,” he was running around the country telling black Americans that Republicans wanted to “put y’all back in chains,” scaring elderly Americans that Obamacare opponents wanted to destroy their Medicare, or straight-up lying about the authenticity of his son’s “laptop from hell.”  You don’t have to watch that old lecherous canker fondle children or impose on women’s personal space to know that Joe Biden has a mottled, tattered soul that would turn the stomachs of the devil’s most sulfurous henchmen.

When a man lacking the requisite character to hold great power is overwhelmed by his own moral turpitude, entire nations fall apart.  How quickly the mindless destruction of President Trump’s economic and immigration policies have thwarted an American middle class renaissance and set the country adrift on a downward spiral.  A Marxist, corporatist, globalist hydra-headed beast has broadsided the nation.  More than any other animating principle, Biden’s administration operates under petulancy, enraged that American citizens would have a reasonable desire to “Make America Great Again.”  The fact that MAGA policies were actually having their intended salubrious effect has pushed the “America Last” cabal into the kind of apoplexy required to witlessly unleash this bizarre and defeatist national self-immolation.  Welcome to Biden’s America, where everyone is imprisoned in a nightmare republic of financial insecurity, stagflation, crime, institutional corruption, and war.  If you don’t like the cultural wasteland outside your window, you’ll fall in love with the abundance of lost opportunities.  

What kind of damage do “America Last” policies inflict on the American people?  They lift up the spirits of our enemies and dampen our own.  They enrich the tyrants of Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, and China, at the expense of American small towns and their working class residents.  They turn “peace” into a dirty word, so that endless war becomes inevitable.  They erode what’s left of the value of the American dollar, while forcing more of the middle class into poverty.  They so confuse our children with Marxist propaganda that misguided youth volunteer for life-altering bodily mutilations before even reaching puberty.  They put such a low value on human life that would-be mothers twist infanticide into a virtue.  They vilify American history, so that America’s past achievements are forgotten.  They blame the innocent for the wicked’s transgressions and punish the law enforcers for the lawbreakers’ crimes.  They praise the illegal immigrant while demonizing the American citizen.  They denigrate as racist those who see character before skin color and laud as “woke” anyone pathologically obsessed with race.  They “manage American decline” as if American decline were inevitable and not intentionally inflicted by its ruling class.  In all ways, Biden’s unforgivable “America Last” parade of horrors hurts Americans, damages their prospects, and seeks to provoke and embitter them until their hopes are sufficiently sunken to match the blighted souls of America’s tormentors.  And the more that Biden and his enablers succeed, the more America resembles the broken-down, stumbling, slobbering, slow-witted, vanquished, bought-and-paid-for China appeaser whose fifty years of public corruption made him the perfect shell to occupy the Executive Office of the President today.

Sometimes, it seems to me, God looks around at the chaos His children have unleashed and decides that a more direct approach to jolting them awake is required before it’s too late.  As devastating for the country as Joe Biden’s time in office has been, he has without a doubt woken up a lot of people to the perilously declining health of the United States today.  It is as if the Almighty has held up a giant mirror near the Potomac River so that Americans confronted with Biden’s morally vacant visage can properly see just how craven, duplicitous, and vilely gangrenous Washington, D.C., has become.  For that one service, I am thankful for the rotting fish in the White House, whose unmitigated disaster of a presidency and obscene predilection for doling out needless cruelty have helped more Americans understand our sorry state of affairs than was previously possible.  If this is our final warning as a nation to stand-to, correct course, and sail around the unforgiving seas ahead, then perhaps America needed the wayward, wobbly excuse for a man we have today in the Oval Office to appreciate wholly that the hour for last chances is fast approaching.  What damage to America Joe Biden has wrought!  Saving the ship before it sinks will require all hands on deck!

One Of Today’s Great Americans, Dinesh D’Souza!!!


A conversation with Dinesh D’Souza about his documentary, 2000 Mules.

Editors’ Note…. 5-18-22

Dinesh D’Souza’s documentary on the 2020 election, 2,000 Mules, has used new streaming platforms to reach a large and enthusiastic audience. In the days to come, we will publish discussions of the film’s arguments and reception. Here we present a conversation with D’Souza about his own hopes for the electoral process and the movie’s impact.

“This has been something people have been obsessed about for two years now.” 

The American Mind: You begin this movie by saying that the 2020 election “haunts the American mind.” Do you think there’s a disconnect between the base, which feels haunted by the possibility of fraud, and GOP leaders who are hesitant to address or discuss the issue?

Dinesh D’Souza: I think that there is a widespread suspicion across the political spectrum that the 2020 election was not all right. Now, not everybody might think it was stolen. But the idea that something was deeply awry, I think, is actually shared by the vast, vast majority of Republicans—including the Republican establishment, but also including a substantial number of independents and Democrats. 

Now of course, the way that each of these groups responds to that suspicion is different. The Republican establishment, by and large, it’s kind of like, “something ugly went on”…but they don’t want to know really what it is. They would prefer not to know. They prefer to dust off and move on—and there are complex reasons for that, but one of them is that they are not entirely displeased that Trump was moved out of the Oval Office. So that’s the Republican establishment.

On the part of the Democrats, I think there are Democrats who themselves think, “we stole it.” But they think that was the right thing to do, because Trump is an authoritarian if not an outright fascist or Nazi—and therefore, emergency measures taken to yank him out of the White House are warranted and actually morally O.K. 

And then of course there’s the broad Republican and MAGA base, which knows kind of in their gut that this was a stolen election, but has not had until now either the vocabulary or the actual evidence to be able to document it. And this is why the Left has been able to be so scornful. They’ll call it a “big lie.” When they say things like, “this is the most secure election in history,” they do not mean that they have done a comparison of elections and established this one to be the most pure. They haven’t done that legwork at all—they haven’t even attempted it. Their argument is merely that the burden of proof is on you, and if you can’t prove the election was stolen, we have to say it was the most secure. And so until this movie, the Left was kind of riding high on all this. And now the movie is showing up to ruin the democratic picnic. 

TAM: Let me ask you a little bit about that burden of proof. In the film you talk to True The Vote [a firm that uses geolocation data and surveillance footage to identify suspected “mules” who carry multiple ballots to drop-off locations]. You present some of what they’ve been able to uncover, but a number of the folks you talk to also acknowledge that when it comes to 2020 itself, “I don’t think we’ll ever know the full story,” as Charlie Kirk says. Sebastian Gorka says, “It’s the perfect crime, because it cannot be curated after it’s committed.” I wanted to ask you first of all, do you agree with that assessment? That there’s no definitive way of going back and saying the election was rigged enough to flip it? 

DD: Well I think that there are two questions here that should be separated. The first one is, is there adequate proof? And the second question is, even if there is adequate proof, is there anything that can be really done about it?

Now, the film presents what I consider to be adequate proof for the intelligent citizen, and by that I mean what’s adequate here is the best available explanation of what happened. I’m not trying to meet the standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” because this is not a case where I’m a prosecutor in a courtroom. And also there are certain limitations that are inherent to a film’s format—so for example, you know, I cannot produce appendices and tables of statistical geo-tracking data. I can show you a chart with a blue line representing the movement of a mule. And if you say, well wait a minute, I don’t believe you, show me the underlying data—well, I’m writing a book, and I’ll try to do some of that in the book, go to the next level of documentation. But you can’t do that in a movie. The audience would be bored to death.

TAM: That’s been some of the more bad-faith criticism of you—the Washington Post took you to task for not having basically cited every possible file.

DD: Right, or, if I show a particular mule—in this case it was the “bike guy”—and he’s taking photos of the ballot, we wanted to show that image, because it’s interesting to see these guys take photos. You can see that they’re not taking photos of themselves—a kind of an “I voted” photo—but rather photos of the ballot. But the Washington Post guy was like, wait a minute, I cannot tell from that image if he’s putting in one or three or ten ballots; what makes you think he’s putting in multiple ballots? 

And my point is actually, I agree: from the point of view of the film and that particular image, you can’t see multiple ballots. Some of this surveillance footage is grainy, sometimes it takes actual expertise to be able to zoom in and try to estimate the actual number of ballots. After all, you know, someone putting in 135 ballots or eight, it looks pretty similar. So unless they’re putting them in one by one, you need almost a magnifying glass to be able to look at the image to try to see what’s going on. So yeah, I mean, I’ve had a lot of this type of quibbling. 

But what I say to myself is, you take any of the major criticisms being made—I mean, some of them are super dumb, some of them are more intelligent, you know, objections made by Ben Shapiro and others. But none of them can survive the observation of the movie as a totality. So that if someone says, for example—and this is true—that in Georgia you can give your ballot to a family member and ask them to drop it off. Now, this would by itself suggest that look, just me showing you multiple ballots doesn’t mean that something illegal is going on. That particular guy could have been dropping off ballots for a family.

But then I say, wait a minute: we’re talking about people that went to ten or more drop boxes. If you’re dropping off the ballots of your family members, why would you go to more than one drop box? Even if you drop some of them on one day and then you got a few more the next day, you’d go at most to two drop boxes, but not 10, let alone in the middle of the night, let alone wearing gloves, let alone taking photos of the ballots as they went in. All of that behavior, seen as a totality, is impossible to reconcile with the hypothesis [that these are innocent voters]—which, again, makes no sense once you’ve seen the movie as a whole.

TAM: I feel like I cut you off before you got to that second part: even if this kind of activity flipped the election for Biden, can anything be done?

DD: Let me say first of all, I’m not saying that that the court case cannot be made. I’m simply saying that you cannot jump from the movie to the Supreme Court. I mean, people literally say to me O.K., is the Supreme Court gonna watch your movie and like, drag Biden out of the Oval Office? And the answer is no, the movie is the first step.

And what the movie says is basically to attorneys general, to secretaries of state, even to elected officials, look: there is a very obvious course of action available to you here, and that is to apprehend the mules. True the Vote has their cell phone I.D.’s—they don’t have their names, but law enforcement can get their names very easily. The process is quite simply to get a warrant, go to the cell phone provider, unmask the mules, then visit them: Who paid you? Who put you up to this? Who organizes this operation? So, this is the normal course of action that law enforcement would take in any other case. A similar approach is called for here. 

Now obviously, if they’re able to unravel and expose a wider cartel that would draw in many other people, the people who run these nonprofits, the people who have been funding the organizations it takes to pull all this together—yeah that’s a case that can absolutely end up in court. In fact the court is the proper place for it to end up. 

But that’s not—the movie is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for that to happen. Now let’s turn to what can be done. When I started the film, my view was that not much can be done. My view was the statute of limitations has expired, there is a very small legal window basically between Election Day and Inauguration Day, and then it’s a done deal. And even if it turns out later that you can establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the election was stolen, there is no recourse. 

And so my original view was that the purpose of this movie is as a truth telling enterprise, because we still want to know. Even if we can do nothing, we still want to know. It’s kind of like if you have a guy who’s accused of a crime—let’s just say a robbery or rape—and the statute of limitations has expired, but there’s new DNA evidence that can establish definitively if he did it, you still want to know if he did it. Truth is important. And the second reason, I thought originally, was to prevent this from happening again. 

Now, as I got into the film and began to realize the kind of sheer magnitude of the fraud and how disgusting it is, I began to revise that view and move toward the view that, why should we automatically assume that the beneficiary of the fraud should continue to benefit from the fraud? In other words, if Lance Armstrong won the Tour de France what, seven or eight times by using illegal drugs, the Tour de France doesn’t just say let’s fix it the next time around. They say, take away Lance Armstrong’s medals, because they don’t want him to get the fruits of the cheating. And I think that that is a legitimate question. I’m not claiming to know the answer to that question—I’m not claiming to know the constitutional process by which it’s adjudicated. 

I mean, I’ve looked into it…basically the Constitution says this: it says the electors meet, it says that their decision is ratified by both houses of Congress, and the president takes office. And then the only other remedy beyond that is impeachment. The Constitution does not seem to envision the possibility that it will emerge later that the guy who’s in the Oval Office is a kind of usurper who has gotten there by fraud perpetrated by his own side. So I just want to make the point that we are in that sense in constitutionally uncharted waters.

And what I want people to do who watch this film is just take a few minutes to digest that, to let that sink in. Just so we don’t hastily jump over that and go O.K., well you know, let’s just go on to the next one. Before we go on to the next one, let’s really think about what happened this time. I think that’s going to better prepare us for how to how to handle the next time. 

TAM: I’d like to address that question of how to handle the next time, but first: this strong desire to just close the question and move on. The near-prohibition on raising it from the Left…I wonder what your experience has been of that. Near the end of the film your interlocutors say you’ll be accused of targeting people, of undermining the electoral process, and so forth. Has that prediction proven true? 

DD: well, at the end of the film, what Gorka and Charlie Kirk and a couple of others are discussing is potential lines of counterattack that can be used by the Left to attempt to discredit the movie. But prior to all that, I’ve got to say: this is my sixth film. And by now I have kind of a formula for releasing these films: typically it’s a wide release in a theater, and then it’s followed by essentially DVD and home box office, which is basically viewing it at home. And there are obvious channels to do that move: iTunes, Amazon Prime, then you try to go to a streamer—Netflix, something like that. And this entire model was unusable for me for this film. This is the most censored topic in America.

You have the certainty of being banned on certain platforms, and a likelihood of being pulled down on others. I thought to myself, you know, I don’t want to be in a position whereas I’m trying to release the film in the critical opening week, they pull a rug out from under me and that’s not going to happen. So I need a completely novel business plan to release this film, in a new way it’s never been done before. 

And so I decided to have a very limited theatrical release, but a very strange kind: we actually rented out those theaters, which you can do by paying like, $5.00 a seat. Essentially you’re buying out the whole theater, but at a discounted price. And so we opened May 2nd and May 4th doing it that way—like, we’re renting this real estate, there’s nothing you can say about it. You can’t cancel the movie: once you’ve signed a contract we can sell tickets, and have people come and watch the movie that way. I’ve never done that before.

And then I put the film only on the Salem media platform and on the Rumble-owned platform called Locals, and this was actually kind of a good break for me. Because I had a powerful video platform, Rumble, on my side, that actually wants to go into the movie business, and saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate that content creators could put a movie on Rumble and do as well, if not better, and actually keep more of the revenue themselves than they would if they went in the traditional way. And so obviously I was open to this in part because I had no alternative, but also because they convinced me that Dinesh, you have a chance to kind of rewrite the rules of the Internet a little bit by doing it this way. But you know, I couldn’t put the trailer up on YouTube, I couldn’t buy ads on Facebook, so all the normal mechanisms for publicizing and distributing a film had to be put to the side. In that sense you can see that this is the first film I’m releasing in an age of censorship. 

TAM: My sense from the outside is, in that regard, it’s been a pretty successful proof of concept.

DD: Oh, I mean, more than pretty successful. We have made this film into a massive success and a cultural phenomenon, you know, we have rappers writing songs about it, we have made $10 million in two weeks, which would be pretty good putting a film in 1,500 theaters! So I would say that in terms of the film’s profitability—as I say, the circumstances are different, but it is far and away my most successful film since the very first one, which was Obama’s America (2016), which broke all kinds of records and became the second-highest-grossing political documentary of all time.

TAM: So let’s turn now to this question of what comes next, at the level of the regime. Irrespective of 2020. When you talk with Hans von Spakovsky, you discuss some systemic changes that were made, in large part during COVID. Mass mail-in ballots, waiving signature requirements, etc., sometimes against the constitutions of the individual states. And these new procedures are highly vulnerable to manipulation. I wonder what your thoughts are on that: What kind of counter effort would be strong enough to roll that back, to secure elections and re-found the electoral process going forward? 

DD: Well I mean, interestingly, the Republican Party is dominant in a number of these swing states. It typically dominates the legislatures. And the only problem is that the Republicans are kind of inert, and very slow to move. I mean, I can see this with my film itself: if I was a Democrat, if I was Michael Moore, if I made this exact same film about the 2016 election and showed massive, coordinated fraud by the Trump side, you can just imagine the furor. Chuck Schumer would be all over it on the Senate floor. Nancy Pelosi would be going berserk. They’d be demanding that Trump resign. 

And contrast this with the Republicans, where, you know, literally if someone goes up to a senator or congressman, “have you seen 2000 Mules?” They’re like, “oh you know, I’ve heard a couple of things about that movie, would you send me a DVD?” [laughs] it’s a radical difference of psychology between the two sides. 

So yeah, if the Republican Party wakes up, they are able to do a whole lot in this area. And now, if the Republicans take the House and the Senate, there’s the opportunity to have hearings, bring all of this to light, and actually follow this plot all the way up. And again as I said there’s a very logical way to do that. If Republicans get fired up by this film, they will put pressure on their local sheriffs to look into this issue of mules. And sheriffs have every authority to investigate. They have every authority to push this forward.

Now, ultimately, they’re going to need some sanction from the attorney general, and so this does become a political matter at the level of—say, Mike Brnovich, the attorney general of Arizona, or of course Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in Georgia. Obviously I’m more optimistic that things can be done in states that have Republicans in positions of power than places where you’ve got, for example, Michigan or Pennsylvania, Democratic secretaries of state and Democratic attorneys general. I can see why those guys are not going to be overly eager to spring into action on this one. 

TAM: Let me ask you then to close about your overall level of optimism. Obviously you wouldn’t have made this documentary if you didn’t think there was some chance of free and fair elections in the future. Do you have hope for the country going forward? 

DD: I’m actually very confident. And I’m confident, by the way, not just in the MAGA movement, which I think is going to be fired up—and in fact we’ve already seen it to a degree that’s unbelievable. This film is getting incredible traction. People said to me, oh, it’s going to be displaced by the Ukraine war. Nope. It’s going to be displaced by the news about Roe v. Wade. Nope. It’s going to be displaced by this mass shooting. Nope. The traction under it reflects the fact that this has been something people have been obsessed about for two years now. 

I also firmly believe that even if it’s establishment Republicans or RINO Republicans, you take Marco Rubio, you take Lindsey Graham, you take McConnell, you take Kevin McCarthy, you sit them down and play the movie, and then ask them what they think when they see the credits, I think they will be blown away. And they will absolutely realize that something is a wrong and something needs to be done. Now again, reasonable people can take different views of what should be done. They might take the view that look, this is a bygone with regard to 2020, and we need to address 2022 and 2024. But I’m optimistic enough to believe but no sane Republican can see this movie and conclude everything is fine with the electoral process as is. 

When Has Crooked Hillary EVER BEEN GUILTY?!!

 MAY 19, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine


The long-awaited trial of Democratic Party fixer Michael Sussman is under way. Sussman is charged with one count of lying to the FBI, the lie being that when he came to the Bureau with fake information about Donald Trump and Russia’s Alfa Bank, he was acting as a public-spirited citizen and not on behalf of any client.

Today former FBI general counsel James Baker testified that Sussman told him that “he was not appearing before me on behalf of any particular client.” Further, when Sussman set up the meeting with Baker with a text message, he said he would be “coming on my own — not on behalf of a client or company — want to help the Bureau.” As a result, the FBI treated Sussman as a confidential source and not as a lawyer representing a party with an axe to grind.

In fact, Sussman was acting for the Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to help her win the presidential election by smearing Donald Trump with a fabricated claim. We know this for certain because he billed the Clinton campaign for his time.

So Sussman is obviously guilty. One thing I don’t know, perhaps because I have not paid a lot of attention to the parties’ pre-trial filings, is how far the trial will go into the whole Trump-Russia hoax. Arguably, the broader context isn’t very relevant. Sussman told a material lie to the FBI. That means he is guilty, and his guilt is easily proved. This could be a very short trial.

The extent to which Sussman’s lie, and the false information he brought to the Bureau on behalf of the Clinton campaign, were part of a broader conspiracy against Trump by the Democratic Party and elements of the FBI, the CIA and the liberal press, is arguably irrelevant, and I assume the jury won’t hear much about it. So I don’t expect the Sussman trial to shed much light on aspects of the Trump-Russia hoax that we don’t already know about.

The only other suspense in the case relates to the jury. Presumably it consists entirely of Democrats, and in D.C., at least some of those Democrats are probably hysterical partisans. Many observers doubt whether a Democratic jury will vote to convict a Democratic Party operative of lying about Donald Trump to try to win the election for Hillary Clinton, no matter what the evidence shows.

Having spent much of my life around juries, and being a strong defender of the jury system, I lay odds at about 60/40 that the jury in the Sussman case will do its duty.

My, How Civilized Hungary Is Today COMPARED TO OUR TODAY’S USA!

Viktor Orbán: ‘In Hungary, a Father Shall be a Man, a Mother a Woman, and Our Children Shall be Left Alone’

  by Amy Mek at RAIR

May 18, 2022

“For us it is important to have God’s blessing.” – Prime Minister of Hungary

On Monday, May 16, 2022, Viktor Orbán was elected Prime Minister of Hungary for the fifth time. After swearing his prime ministerial oath, Orbán vowed to protect his country from the European Union’s destructive globalist multicultural policies. Furthermore, he will not allow the liberal elites to attack their Christian identity, cultures, customs, or history.

The anti-Communist leader sharply criticized the migration policies of Western European Countries in a powerful Parliamentary speech. The low birth rate of Christian children will be compensated for by immigrants from other cultures using a “population exchange program,” he said in parliament. This is the “suicide of the West.”

So far, Christianity and the nation-states have held this region of Europe together. Orbán criticized that the “liberal” EU was doing away with these constants. Her vision corresponds to a world where individual freedom is paramount, but people are decoupled from community, family, and home. “Individuals can never be free, but merely lonely.”

‘Gender Madness,’ God’s Blessings

Western countries have committed themselves to “gender madness” and regard people as the creators of their identity, including gender and sexuality. On these points, there is a “cultural alienation” between Brussels and Budapest:

There is also a widening cultural distance – almost a cultural alienation – between the western half of Europe and Hungary. This is because we believe in Europe’s Christian civilizational foundations and we believe in the concept of nation states, which has already been abandoned in Brussels. For us it is important to have God’s blessing.

Orbán stressed that his government would resist this moral and population decline as it is committed to sound order, stability, and “uncompromising, unyielding loyalty” to the Hungarian people and their homeland. It is essential for Hungarians to leave their children and grandchildren a home that is worth preserving.

“We will continue to defend our borders and will not allow migrants in. We will protect our families and not let gender activists into our schools,” the head of government assured. “In Hungary, a father shall be a man, a mother a woman, and our children shall be left alone.” Moreover, Orbán will not “accept economic measures that would ruin Hungarian families.”

Orbán: ‘Hungary is the future of Europe

More and more people around the world saw Hungary as a fortress of freedom, order, security, and peace. “We make no secret of the fact that we also want to give hope to others: hope that the Christian outlook on life, love of country, and national pride – in other words, national politics – are not things of the past but of the future. Thirty years ago, we thought that Europe was our future; today, we think that we are Europe’s future. Let us feel the weight of our responsibility.”

After the inauguration ceremony and speech, the head of government was greeted by his granddaughter, Alice. He called her love and hugs his “greatest gift”:

Article sent by Mark Waldeland!

Boris Johnson Recognizes Goodness. Our Biden Recognizes GREED to SUPPLY HIS BANK ACCOUNTS!

May 19, 2022

Boris Johnson, International Leader

By Michael Curtis at American Thinker:

Boris Johnson has and is making a greater contribution with his practical actions to the support of Ukraine and defeat of Vladimir Putin, whom Johnson has called a “21st century tyrant,” than the grandstanding Macron in France or most EU members. The difference is stark; Macron has declared there must be “no humiliation of Russia.”

Johnson has had a successful career. Born in 1964 in Manhattan, he has a mixed pedigree including a maternal great grandfather who was a rabbi in Lithuania. He was educated at top prestigious schools: Eton and Balliol College, Oxford. He was chosen to be president of the Oxford Student Union in 1986. He became a journalist, a favorite on British TV talk shows, author of a number of books, including one on Winston Churchill, and then a conservative Member of Parliament in 2001. He was elected Mayor of London in 2008 and reelected in 2012. He returned to Parliament, becoming a prominent advocate of exiting the EU. He was appointed by Prime Minister Theresa May as foreign minister for a short time, then in 2019 was elected leader of the Conservative Party and became prime minister.

Boris Johnson’s main and immediate task, in addition to the Protocol for Northern Ireland, was to reopen Brexit negotiations and complete British withdrawal from the EU. The date was for Johnson, “the moment when the dawn breaks and the curtain goes up on a new act in our great national drama.” The fundamental irony today is that the country and Johnson, implementor of Brexit, is now leading the defense of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and bolder in confronting Russia to a greater extent than Brussels.

An unexpected consequence of Brexit is that Britain has not been isolated and marginalized as many predicted, but has under Johnson become the most active country and a leader in European politics. It is resuming the international role Britain once played, as in the confrontation with Russia in the Baltic during the Crimean war in 1854, and its preparation to send a fleet to protect Copenhagen in 1864 against a threatened German attack. Johnson’s boldness in the Baltic has echoes of strong leaders such as Pitt the Younger, Winston Churchill, and Margaret Thatcher, the Iron Lady who rescued the Falkland Islands.

It is not too strong to say that Britain has been the foremost European and NATO member in dealing with the Ukraine conflict. The contrast with Macron is telling. The French president was reluctant to agree to sanctions on Russia or to supply heavy weapons to Ukraine. instead of reinforcing NATO, Macron has proposed a new European political community. Macron is also opposed to Ukraine becoming a member either of the EU or NATO. In contrast, Britain has played a decisive role in supplying weapons, in training and equipping the Ukrainians, and in strongly supporting sanctions against Russia.

Johnson was the first western leader to visit Kyiv, walk the streets with Zelensky, and address the Ukrainian parliament where he received a standing ovation. Johnson told the Ukrainians, in Churchillian terms, that their heroic defense against Russian aggression would rank as “Ukraine’s finest hour… you have exploded the myth of Putin’s invincibility.”

Johnson broke new ground in flying to Stockholm and then to Helsinki to see the leaders of Sweden and Finland, two non-aligned countries during the Cold War, before they announced their plans to apply for admission to NATO. In a bold move Johnson signed a mutual security pact with the two countries. Sweden has islands near the Russian base of Kaliningrad, and has a military of 21,500 troops and 100 tanks. Finland has a 830-mile border with Russia that runs close to St. Petersburg, an army of 6,850 troops and 120 tanks.

Britain is aiding these two countries with security measures, Royal Navy warships have begun to patrol the Baltic, while the armies and the RAF are involved in joint exercises. Britain has agreed to share intelligence with Finland and Sweden as part a new northern security network that will include the British-led NATO force in nearby Estonia. This is a dramatic challenge to Putin, who cited NATO enlargement as a main reason for his invasion and who always declared opposition to the expansion of NATO membership, but who on May 16, 2022 was obliged to say he had no problem with the application of the two countries. However, Putin also warned that the “expansion of military infrastructure to the countries will certainly invoke our response.”

Finland and Sweden recognize, as Johnson has asserted, that the security environment has fundamentally changed, and that the only country that threatens European security is Russia. The only problem for the application of the two countries is Turkey, which wants the Nordic countries to halt support for the Kurdish militant groups in their territory, before it agrees to their NATO membership.

Britain is playing a bold role, calling on allies to win the battle for Ukraine and prevent any further aggression by Putin, and to commit to further waves of sanctions as long as Russian troops remain in Ukraine. Sanctions in sensitive areas must remain. There is also need for a program like the Marshall plan to help rebuild Ukraine after the aggression has ended by a complete Russian withdrawal and peace agreement.

The solution for security is not the ambiguous European Confederation which President Macron has proposed but more likely an association of Britain with Scandinavian and Eastern European states proposed by Johnson, now the international statesman.