• 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

Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis are the two (former) New York City lawyers who constructed Molotov cocktails

Molotov cocktail lawyers finally plead guilty. Again

JAZZ SHAW Jun 04, 2022

(AP Photo/Nabil al-Jurani, File)

Here are a couple of names that we haven’t seen in the headlines for a while. Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis are the two (former) New York City lawyers who constructed Molotov cocktails and firebombed a police vehicle during the summer of love back in 2020. They were identified almost immediately and arrested, leading to a series of plea deals that were announced and then rejected or withdrawn. The two could have been facing 30 years in prison or even life sentences under domestic terrorism charges. But this week they both entered a guilty plea (again) and will now very likely face far less time behind bars than had been originally anticipated. (Wall Street Journal)

Two lawyers involved in throwing a Molotov cocktail at a New York City police car during a 2020 protest following the killing of George Floyd pleaded guilty Thursday to a conspiracy charge, under a new agreement with prosecutors that could lead to a shorter prison sentence.

Urooj Rahman and Colinford Mattis faced federal charges after they assembled a chemical-filled glass bottle, which Ms. Rahman tossed into an empty police vehicle during the May 2020 protest in Brooklyn. She fled in a car driven by Mr. Mattis. The incident was recorded on local surveillance cameras. No one was injured.

Ms. Rahman and Mr. Mattis pleaded guilty last year to one count of possessing and making an explosive device, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.

In the end, the court accepted guilty pleas from each of the defendants on a single charge of conspiracy to construct an explosive device. The maximum sentence for that is just five years but prosecutors don’t expect them to receive more than one to two years and a fine. They will also be permanently disbarred in New York.

Does that really seem like enough? Rahman was caught on video throwing the bomb, as well as driving away from the scene. Colinford Mattis had a pile of firebombs in his vehicle and was recorded as he attempted to hand them out to other rioters, encouraging them to ramp up the destruction. They admitted doing it multiple times in public, so there was never any question of guilt. As to motive and intent, one week after the attack, Urooj Rahman famously told reporters that “the only way they hear us is through violence.”

The pair were offered a plea deal as early as February of last year, but it apparently wasn’t good enough. They had been originally charged with seven felony counts including arson, conspiracy, and illegal use of explosives. In October, they finally pleaded guilty to one count of possession of an explosive device. That was vastly more lenient than the original charges, but the state somehow still couldn’t even close the deal. And now we’ve arrived at this single count of conspiracy and a slap on the wrist.

Was this a case of the prosecution somehow being worried that they wouldn’t be able to bring in a guilty verdict on any more serious charges? Or do New York City’s liberal prosecutors simply not want to put them away? Both of those possibilities might be in play. From the beginning, the media has played up the image of the bomb makers, describing them as “young and idealistic.” If this case had gone to trial, the press would no doubt continue doing it, claiming that the two were being “persecuted” by a racist system or whatever.

The court might not be able to find a full jury willing to pronounce them guilty despite the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence proving the charges. And the district attorneys in New York are quite uninterested in charging cases of domestic terrorism unless it’s the right kind of domestic terrorism. (People who can be portrayed as white conservatives and probably Trump supporters.) They certainly don’t want to be locking anyone up for firebombing a law enforcement vehicle if it was done in the name of “social justice,” right?

There’s an old saying about how the wheels of justice turn slowly. In New York, sometimes they even spin in reverse.

“Time to send these know-it-all green Marxist lunatics, and all of their ilk, back to the cave where they belong”.

June 5, 2022

The Naked Truth about Energy Transitions

By Jeanne Donovan at American Thinker:

Energy sources have historically taken decades to transition from old methods to new technologies.  Changes were driven by visionary entrepreneurs coupled with evolving public demand.

The transition from horses and buggies to automobiles took 50 years.  Even in that long time span, this evolution was not always beneficial to individuals or communities.  There were pros and cons on both sides.  “Before city dwellers complained about cars, smog, congestion, and the loss of public space, they railed against stinking, fly-ridden horse crap.”

The difference between the 19th century and the 21st century is that new energy technology slowly grew in popularity while capitalism fueled the desire for a better life.  Now Americans are suffering during Biden’s presidential term, and the wounds are self-inflicted.  Politicians and regulatory bureaucrats are purposely destroying our energy independence while pretending their policies have nothing to do with issues of inflation, shortages, and possible rationing.  They are misdirecting blame to Putin and COVID-19, but they know better.  Biden and his cohorts are deliberately weakening our country for what seems like a blend of Marxist-green ideology.  They even think our pain is funny.

Today’s climate-mongers, led by ideologues such as Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Jennifer Granholm, Elizabeth Warren, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, to name a few, are so mindlessly shortsighted that they apparently can’t think beyond the tips of their noses.  They demand we give up fossil fuels and replace them with renewable energy, and they want it right now!  Damn the consequences to you, me, and our country during the transition.  They know that they’ll all be dead in fifty years, so they’re not willing to let change happen incrementally, plus they have only two and a half years left of Joe’s presidency to complete their build-back-worse strategy, and if some of these ideologues are true to their stated belief, we will all be dead in the next nine years because of global warming.  Therefore, we absolutely must accept their scripture and change our sinning ways to save the planet.  All the more reason they push us toward presumed energy nirvana before our extinction occurs.  These people are not patient or logical, so they never think ahead to imagine what could go wrong if they succeed with their mission to rewire the world in their image.

Currently, they want all of us, including the poor, to either stay home or buy electric cars so we won’t have to rely on fossil fuels.  Hah!  Are they really that stupid, or do they think we are stupid?  For starters, don’t they know that most electricity is made with coal?  Do they truly believe they will be able to power their Teslas using unreliable wind or solar energy?  The energy supplied by wind and sun is God’s free gifts to the world, but to harness that energy for renewable purposes also requires an energy source, as well as petroleum byproducts, not to mention rare earths that are mostly owned by China.  Are they going to build these same windmills and solar panels using only renewable energy?  I don’t think so.

Those sleek new Teslas, with all their plastic accoutrements, will also need tires.  Sixty percent of all tires in the world are made from synthetic rubber, which is a byproduct of hydrocarbons.  If we get rid of petroleum, tires will become a relic of the past.

“Attempting to replace all fossil fuel tire constituents with biomaterials will be impossible in the near term and extremely difficult in the long term[.]”  How will earth movers without mega-tires transport materials used to build our country’s infrastructure or build skyscrapers?  How will heavy loaders transport even a single wind turbine blade weighing 12 tons across the country?  How will we transport food and goods to different states without tires?  I guess we’ll need more trains — but oops, they also need fossil fuel to run.  How will John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, and Hollywood stars land their private jets around the world without tires?

But then why worry about tires since planes are built using products made with petroleum byproducts?  Plane production must stop.  How will our military vehicles be able to defend our country and our allies without tires?  How will we be able to supply weapons of war to Ukraine?  Without the byproducts of petroleum for making tires and other plastics, transportation would be unrecognizable, if it existed at all.  We may have to resort to vehicles resembling Barney Rubble’s car.

Every one of us could ask thousands of similar, logical questions about what life would be like after the loss of byproducts of petroleum.  Greenies would have no viable answers. 

One last thought, and not a pretty one.  Imagine a day when all petroleum products have been canceled.  As a consequence, its byproducts are no longer available.  Now imagine your least favorite greenie lunatic lecturing you from a podium about global warming and the end of times.  Embarrassingly, because all hydrocarbon synthetic fibers previously used to make almost everything that adorned our bodies have been prohibited, and because there are no more tires to support tractors to plow the fields for natural fibers like cotton and flax, and because PETA objects to anyone using animal fur or leather for clothing, the green lunatic is left standing before you — naked as the day he was born.  The empress has no clothes.  Nor can she distract your eyes from her nakedness by applying bright red lipstick, gesticulating her red-polished acrylic fingernails, or prancing about in her sparkling Louboutin heels.  They all disappeared when petroleum was banned.

That isn’t progress.  It’s a step back in time.  Sadly, now that deodorant, soap, and shampoo have disappeared, our green empress smells like horse crap.

Time to send these know-it-all green Marxist lunatics, and all of their ilk, back to the cave where they belong.


Largest ever migrant caravan begins walk across entire length of Mexico to U.S. border

by KAREN TOWNSEND Jun 05, 2022  at HotAir:

AP Photo/Marco Ugarte

The largest-ever migrant caravan is beginning its trek to the US-Mexico border. The estimated number of migrants in the caravan ranges from about 11,000 to 15,000. Most of them are women and children. The news of the caravan comes at a particularly awkward time for the Biden administration. Biden’s Summit of the Americas is supposed to begin Monday in Los Angeles.

As often happens with the Biden administration, details about the Summit are murky. As of the middle of last week, the leaders who will attend has not been confirmed. The caravan plans to leave Tapachula, a city on the Mexico-Guatemala border, on Monday, the same day the Summit of the Americas is set to begin. Other caravans have left from Tapachula in the past but this one is said to be the largest one ever. The migrants in the caravan aren’t just from Central America, they are from countries around the world, from as far away as Africa and India.

“This is the largest mass human migration I have seen in at least the past 10 years,” said Luís Villagrán, an organizer of the caravan and director of the non-profit Center for Human Dignification.

The largest number of migrants in the caravan come from Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua – three countries whose authoritarian rulers Joe Biden has conspicuously refused to invite to the summit. But there are also Haitians, Salvadorans, Hondurans, Guatemalans and even citizens of India, Bangladesh, and several African countries.

Earlier this month, the Mexican National Migration Institute (INM), wrote to Villagrán, expressing sympathy for the caravan’s members and pledging to help the most vulnerable among them. The letter also acknowledges that the caravan is a result of the stunning tsunami of migration from nearly every country in the Americas to the United States in the past few years, attributing this migration to elevated rates of violence and economic instability in the continent.

The response by the INM is a first from the Mexican government toward organizers of migrant caravans. Villagran said that Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) may be trying to look like a humanitarian ahead of the Sumit of the Americas. It may not be a signal that the Mexican authorities are shifting to a more responsive mode in dealing with migrants. Villagran acknowledges, “Immigration is used as a political tool.” AMLO may be hoping to boost his image as the Summit begins.

Frustrated Mexican officials and law enforcement are reported to be turning to more violent responses to the influx of migrants. Nonetheless, the caravan continues to organize and Villagran demands that the migrants receive humanitarian visas from the Mexican government. Humanitarian visas will allow migrants to cross through checkpoints along the way in Mexico.

In Tapachula, the National Guard is routinely used to corral, detain, and teargas unruly groups of migrants in front of the city’s INM office, where people often wait for weeks or months for the humanitarian visa needed to leave the city.

On Tuesday, thousands gathered at Tapachula’s city center to write their names on a list that Villagrán would submit to INM to secure visas for the group. At one point, an altercation broke out as migrants worried others would get to the list before them, and they would be left behind.

Before they depart, Villagrán and the migrants are demanding humanitarian visas be given immediately, so the group can pass through migration checkpoints without being arrested or attacked by Mexican National Guard, as happened in April. Anyone attempting to cross through one of the checkpoints without a visa is sent back to Tapachula and forced to wait months for papers that may never come.

Over the past three months, migrants have poured into Tapachula’s parks and shelters at twice or three times the previous rate. Migrant shelters that once housed no more than 400 people are now accommodating nearly 2,000. Bathrooms overflow, food dwindles until it is just one scoop of beans, and migrants sleep in the hallways, or on spread out sweatshirts in the jungle.

So, while leaders from Latin countries arrive in Los Angeles to discuss problems facing their countries and their relationship with each other, a massive caravan is beginning to walk the length of Mexico en route to the US border. The Biden administration originally stated that only “democratically-elected leaders” would be invited to the Summit. That would exclude Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. This caused some heads of state like AMLO to threaten a boycott. This diplomatic crisis (everything is a crisis with this administration) continues right up to the start of the Summit. As I said above, there has still not been a list of participants released. You may remember that Jill Biden was sent to smooth ruffled feathers and encourage the leadership in some of the region to attend the Summit. Let’s just say she didn’t exactly score a victory in her mission. Will Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Honduras, and Guatemala, as well as others, go ahead and attend the Summit or will they make good on their threats of a boycott?

Biden’s border crisis continues to be a magnet to people around the world. We’ll see if the largest migrant caravan makes its way to the US border. Sometimes a caravan is reported to be organizing and then nothing much happens. We’ll soon know if this is one of those times or if thousands of migrants begin to walk the length of Mexico in hopes of being allowed into the United States.

CORRUPTION!! FASCISM!! “Why Are Thy Stories So Often Found, IN “THE NEW YORK TIMES!”

JUNE 5, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


Last week, the New York Times published a hit piece on our friend Cleta Mitchell. Cleta, a top-notch lawyer, was a partner in an international law firm until she had to resign because leftists besieged her law firm’s clients, demanding that she be fired. She is now working on election integrity issues for the Conservative Partnership Institute.

The Times story lies from the top, beginning with its headline: “Lawyer Who Plotted to Overturn Trump Loss Recruits Election Deniers to Watch Over the Vote.” Mitchell did not “plot to overturn Trump loss,” she worked in a single state, Georgia, to examine and expose election integrity issues there. And the Times calls those who are concerned about the honesty of our elections “election deniers,” a childish smear.

The article begins:

In a hotel conference center outside Harrisburg, Pa., Cleta Mitchell, one of the key figures in a failed scheme to overturn Donald J. Trump’s defeat, was leading a seminar on “election integrity.”

Again, the same misrepresentation of Cleta’s post-election efforts. And the fact that the Times puts election integrity in scare quotes tells you all you need to know about the paper’s position on voter fraud.

“We are taking the lessons we learned in 2020 and we are going forward to make sure they never happen again,” Ms. Mitchell told the crowd of about 150 activists-in-training.

To the extent the Times quotes Mitchell, what she says is entirely unobjectionable. So the Times fills the vacuum with smears and absurdly false characterizations:

In the days after the 2020 election, Ms. Mitchell was among a cadre of Republican lawyers who frantically compiled unsubstantiated accusations, debunked claims and an array of confusing and inconclusive eyewitness reports to build the case that the election was marred by fraud. Courts rejected the cases and election officials were unconvinced, thwarting a stunning assault on the transfer of power.

This is ostensibly a news story, not an op-ed. But when it comes to protecting the Democrats’ ability to implement a voter fraud strategy, the Times takes no chances.

This part is entertaining if you know the back story:

Asked about her project at the Pennsylvania training, Ms. Mitchell declined an interview request and asked a reporter to leave.

The Times reporter sneaked into the Harrisburg event, which was not open to the press, and cornered Mitchell in the ladies’ room, apparently a favorite liberal tactic. Cleta declined to be interviewed in the bathroom and, yes, asked the reporter to leave. It’s funny how reporters leave out the facts that make them, personally, look stupid.

The Times piece goes on and on, conflating legitimate election integrity efforts like those carried out by the Conservative Partnership Institute with flakier, if well-intentioned efforts by others. And it isn’t only the Times that gets hysterical about the idea that votes might be cast and counted honestly in upcoming elections. I learned about the Times hit job because it was reprinted on the front page, above the fold, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, with a headline about “election deniers.”

You can learn more about CPI’s Election Integrity Network here. The site includes podcasts and a donate button. The cause is well worth supporting. And you can go here to get the organization’s Citizens Guide emailed to you.

Why do liberals go ballistic over efforts to assure honest elections? Because voter fraud is an element of the Democrats’ election strategy. Sometimes the Democrats commit voter fraud themselves, and sometimes they enable voter fraud by doing away with safeguards. In 2020, Minnesota was one of a number of states where the Democrats used fraudulent, collusive litigation to unconstitutionally change election laws so as to facilitate cheating.

Briefly, the DFL Party recruited plaintiffs to start two lawsuits, one in federal court and one in state court. The lawsuits, in which Minnesota’s Democratic Secretary of State was the defendant, alleged that on account of covid, the only safeguard on mail-in ballots–the requirement of a witness signature–should be done away with. That was a non sequitur, of course, and the Secretary of State has no legal power to change Minnesota’s election laws.

But the whole thing was set up in advance, and Secretary of State Steve Simon immediately “settled” the two lawsuits by agreeing to do away with the witness signature requirement. The settlement came on for approval before a federal judge, who refused to approve it. But the state court judge, in that case, loyally approved the settlement, and 1.8 million mail-in ballots were cast with no meaningful barrier to fraud. How many of the 1.8 million were illegal? There is no possible way to know.

That is the problem with a lack of ballot integrity: it can’t be remedied after the fact, it can only be prevented. This is why the efforts of groups like the Election Integrity Network are so important, and why leftists are so desperate to discredit them.

The current Rasmussen Reports offers a useful coda:

The new documentary “2000 Mules,” which investigates evidence of widespread cheating in the 2020 presidential election, is hitting home with voters who have seen the film.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 77% of those Likely U.S. voters who have seen “2000 Mules” say the movie strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election. Only 19% of those who have seen the documentary say their belief in election fraud was weakened.

So far, only 15% of voters have seen “2000 Mules,” the movie by conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza….

Awareness of the new documentary is much more widespread, with 41% of voters saying they’ve heard about “2000 Mules.” That includes 50% of Republicans, 36% of Democrats and 38% of unaffiliated voters.

“Only” 15 percent have seen the film? That is a huge number. Interestingly, many Democrats join Republicans in wanting honest elections:

Among voters who have seen “2000 Mules,” 85% of Republicans, 68% of Democrats and 77% of unaffiliated voters say the movie strengthened their conviction that there was systematic and widespread election fraud in the 2020 election.

Among voters who have seen the documentary, 78% say they would recommend “2000 Mules” to others regardless of whether or not they share their political beliefs. That includes 84% of Republicans, 73% of Democrats and 74% of unaffiliated voters who have seen the film.

Even among those who haven’t seen “2000 Mules” yet, 57% believe it is important for the public to be aware of topics covered in the movie, including 40% who believe public awareness of the subject is Very Important. Only 17% think public awareness of the topics covered in “2000 Mules” is Not At All Important.

There is a reason why voter ID consistently polls at around 75%. Most people, including most Democrats, want honest elections. In the long run, leaders of the Democratic Party and their cheerleaders in organs like the New York Times are most likely fighting a losing battle.


So Russia just shelled Kyiv again

JAZZ SHAW Jun 05, 2022 at HotAir:

AP Photo/Felipe Dana

It would appear that Vladimir Putin doesn’t want anyone in the west getting too comfortable or thinking that they’ve figured out what he’s up to. After shifting the focus of the invasion almost entirely to the eastern, industrial part of Ukraine, the Russians shelled the capital city of Kyiv this morning. They hit railways and other “infrastructure” targets according to the Ukrainian Defense Minister. There were no reported deaths from the attacks thus far, though one person was hospitalized after suffering injuries. The other reported target of the strikes was a collection of tanks provided to Ukraine’s army by eastern European nations. Russia’s Ministry of Defense claimed that the tanks were destroyed, but Ukraine did not confirm that it was accurate. This is probably a good time to point out that there are diplomats from the United States and other NATO and EU countries back in Kyiv on a daily basis now. Surely Putin is aware that this sort of activity is keeping us on the brink of a serious escalation of the war. (Associated Press)

Russian forces pounded railway facilities and other infrastructure early Sunday in the capital, Kyiv. Ukraine’s nuclear plant operator, Energoatom, said one cruise missile buzzed the Pivdennoukrainsk nuclear plant, about 350 kilometers (220 miles) to the south, on its way to the capital — citing the dangers of such a near miss.

There was no immediate confirmation from Ukraine that the Russian airstrikes had destroyed tanks.

Kyiv hadn’t faced any such strikes since the April 28 visit of U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres. The early morning attack triggered air raid alarms and showed that Russia still had the capability and willingness to hit at Ukraine’s heart since abandoning its wider offensive across the country to instead focus its efforts in the east.

There is clearly a message being sent by Putin here. This was an attempt to take out western military hardware that had been supplied to Ukraine’s forces. It’s also taking place only days after Joe Biden authorized the delivery of some long-range missiles to Zelensky.

In case anyone thought that Putin wasn’t going to notice that decision and the potential escalation it represents, think again. Before launching this attack, Putin sent out a warning about not giving the Ukrainians long-range rockets. He warned that Russia would attack targets “we haven’t struck yet” if those missiles were delivered.

Russia’s defense ministry said a barrage of airstrikes on Ukraine’s capital destroyed tanks donated by the West and other armor in an attack on Sunday that shattered five weeks of eerie calm in Kyiv, as President Vladimir Putin warned the West about supplying long-range rocket systems to Ukraine.

Putin said that Moscow would hit targets “we haven’t yet struck” if it went ahead with such deliveries. It wasn’t immediately clear if Putin was referring to new targets within or outside Ukraine’s borders.

So what did Putin actually mean? (And how many times are we going to have to ask that question before this is finally over?) Clearly, Kyiv isn’t a target that Russia “hasn’t struck yet.” The capital was bombarded countless times during Russia’s initial, failed attempt to overthrow the government and control the western region of Ukraine. In fact, aside from some farms and swamps, you’d be hard-pressed to find many targets inside of Ukraine that Russian missiles or troops haven’t hit.

Is this a suggestion that Putin is looking at targets outside of Ukraine in response to the United States sending more advanced weaponry to Zelensky? That shouldn’t even be on the table at this point. There aren’t many targets outside of Ukraine at the moment that wouldn’t immediately trigger a NATO response and Moscow knows that. One other possibility I heard mentioned this morning was that Vladimir Putin is looking to create some leverage that he might be able to use to begin easing the sanctions against him.

I’m sure he would love to see that happen, but there isn’t much he could offer at this point that would give the west any incentive to do that short of a complete withdrawal from the country. I can’t see anyone in the NATO ranks saying, ‘Okay, we’ll drop all the sanctions if you don’t bomb Kyiv as often.” Everyone keeps looking for an “offramp” to end this war, but the person driving the car is Putin and the conflict is turning into a quagmire in the east.

“Bertrand has failed upward”.

 JUNE 5, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


Politico frequently reads like an internal house organ of the Democratic Party and a key component of the Democrats’ public relations adjunct. Natasha Bertrand’s October 2020 Politico story promoting the line that the New York Post’s Hunter Biden laptop coverage constituted Russian disinformation is a classic disgrace. Bertrand’s story ran under the headline “Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say.”

Moving on from Politico, Bertrand has failed upward. She is White House reporter for CNN.
And Politico marches on.

In the June 2 edition of Politico’s West Wing Playbook, Alex Thompson and Max Tani lead with “The trials of being an ex-Biden.” Covering the memoir of Hunter Biden’s ex-wife to be published on June 14, the story reads like advance damage control.

The story inadvertently reveals the lack of introspection on Politico’s disgrace. Thompson and Tani disparage the New York Post in passing (link in original): “[T]he personal life of the president’s son’s has become daily fodder for The New York Post, the Daily Mail and other right-leaning tabloids, all while his overseas business relationships remain a focus of major mainstream news outlets.”

The story also offers a quote from the book:

“Hunter tried to tell me that he came from a middle-class family,” she writes. “Months later, when I went to his house for the first time, I explained to him: ‘Hunt, a kid from a middle class family does not have a ballroom.’”

The editors of the New York Post have not taken kindly to the slight administered to the Post by Thompson and Tani in passing. The Post editorial is “Politico’s pusillanimous pandering on Hunter Biden.”

In this case the Post’s response seems to me somewhat disproportionate to the offense. The Post editors should hammer on Bertrand’s story, its manifestation of the deep state working to support its preferred presidential candidate in the 2020 election by utterly foul means, and Politico’s service as the willing instrument of a transparent lie.


 JUNE 4, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at PowerLine:


I haven’t written much about the latest round of gun control hysteria, mostly because I have said everything I have to say on that topic many times over the years. The liberal solutions to mass shooting incidents, which are very rare, are every bit as silly and ineffective as their solutions to crime in general, which is ubiquitous and therefore vastly more important. Defunding the police makes about as much sense as banning some arbitrarily selected category of firearm. Neither measure will do anything to stem the tide of crime and violence that has swept over us.

The National Rifle Association has a great deal more expertise on these issues than left-wing politicians, and as you might expect, the NRA’s proposals make much more sense. The NRA’s response to Joe Biden’s televised gun control speech includes this:

The NRA has long supported securing our schools so that our teachers and children will be safe. We support strict enforcement of all our nation’s laws that target violent criminals. We support prosecution and punishment of criminals who break these laws. Indeed, the NRA supports the arrest, prosecution and punishment of any violent criminal or other dangerous prohibited person who tries to purchase or possess a firearm.

The Obama administration whined about gun crime, but actual criminal prosecution of crimes involving firearms sank like a stone, compared with the Bush administration, when Obama took office.

We support fully funding law-enforcement agencies. And, we wholeheartedly support the right of any law-abiding American to defend themselves and their loved ones. Even though it’s rarely reported, more than a million law abiding Americans use firearms in self-defense every year – most without ever firing a shot. What we don’t support are senseless policies like no-cash bail that create a revolving door justice system that only endangers good citizens. And, we will fight any proposal that will disarm law-abiding Americans.

This is perhaps the most important point, which for some reason we don’t hear much about:

And, America does have a critical mental health crisis. Many are sick, too few people are able to recognize their illness, and even less get help. The sad reality is there are too few resources for those who need it. Over the last 60 years, the number of beds available at psychiatric hospitals in America has dropped by 96 percent. In 1955, there were an estimated 340 beds per 100,000 people with mental health illnesses. In 2016, that number fell to 11.7 beds per 100,000 people. We must find a way to reach these people before they hurt themselves or others. And, we must fund places for these people to find refuge and treatment.

Emphasis added. The U.S. once had a mental health care system, but it was dismantled after a couple of unusually stupid movies portrayed closing down mental hospitals as a species of liberation. Now the mentally ill are either tossed out onto the streets or remitted to the care of their families, who often are entirely unable to deal with them. The Sandy Hook murderer killed his mother; the Uvalde murderer shot his grandmother. The liberals’ idea that families can cope with the seriously mentally ill is delusional.

Until this country develops an actual, functioning mental health care system that includes identification and hospitalization of the dangerously mentally ill on a reasonably consistent basis, we will continue to see high crime rates as well as occasional explosions of mass violence by the deranged.


June 4, 2022

Following Biden’s Gun Control Speech, An Inconvenient Story Surfaces

By Stu Tarlowe at American Thinker:

Thursday night’s news programs were dominated by the story of President Biden’s speech earlier in the evening, in which he pressed for more stringent gun control measures. If I were to pick apart his remarks—and, believe me, there is fertile ground on which to do so!—I might zero in on his claim that “…the Second Amendment…is not absolute. It was Justice Scalia who wrote, and I quote: ‘Like most rights, the right Second Amendment — the rights granted by the Second Amendment are not unlimited.’ Not unlimited. It never has been.”

Really? “The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” sounds pretty absolute to me. But that’s just me. What matters more is that Biden’s supposed quote from the late Antonin Scalia isn’t quite accurate. Indeed, it changes a word that is critical to understanding the nature of the rights that the Founders enumerated in our Bill of Rights.

It’s true that, in the Supreme Court’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the learned Justice Scalia did raise questions of limitations to the nature of weaponry covered. What Scalia wrote contrasts with remarks from Tench Coxe (1755-1824), a political economist and a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress, who emphatically stated that the weaponry referred to by the Second Amendment comprised “every terrible implement of the soldier.” Nevertheless, on the core issue, Scalia got it right and Biden misquoted him. Thus, Scalia did not refer to the rights “granted” by the Second Amendment; rather, he referred to “the right secured by the Second Amendment….”

This distinction is lost on far too many Americans, including (perhaps deliberately) President Biden and his fellow Democrats. Our Founders, in their wisdom, believed that rights such as those enumerated in the first ten amendments to the Constitution were not granted by a beneficent government, but were God-given rights that the Constitution pledged to protect.

When it comes to inaccuracies, it’s also important to zero in on Biden’s call for “Repeal of the immunity that protects gun manufacturers from liability.” This repeats a theme he brought up in his State of the Union address, one that sees him advocating for the repeal of “the liability shield that makes gun manufacturers the only industry in America that cannot be sued. The only one.” That was wrong then and it was wrong Thursday night.

The truth is that the firearms industry is far from the only industry that enjoys liability protections. Those liability protections are the same ones that keep you from suing General Motors just because the driver who smashed into your car happened to be driving a Chevy. Manufacturers are liable for badly made products, not for well-made products that are used badly.

To give context to the fundamental errors in Biden’s speech, overnight another, seemingly unrelated news story surfaced. It tells of the end of a manhunt for a convicted murderer who had escaped from a prison bus in Texas on May 12.

The fugitive, Gonzalo Lopez, was killed in a shootout with Texas lawmen late Thursday night after he crashed the truck he had presumably stolen from a residence in Centerville, Texas. An adult and four children were found dead in that residence.

So far, none of the stories I’ve seen about this incident indicate how the family was slain, or whether Lopez, who had been on the run for three weeks, already had a gun when he broke into their vacation cabin. Some reports say that, in addition to the pickup truck, Lopez had stolen firearms from the home, but this belief has not been confirmed.

I doubt that too many more details of this story will be forthcoming. In fact, I predict that this story will fade away in short order. It’s an inconvenient story, coming as it does on the heels of Biden’s appeal for stricter limits on gun ownership and on the type of firearms that citizens should be permitted to keep and bear.

Reading the minimalist facts about that family’s tragic demise makes me wonder if the family actually had access to a firearm to defend against an escaped convicted murderer breaking into their residence. I wonder if they called 9-1-1. Presumably, the police arrived just in the nick of time to draw chalk outlines around their lifeless bodies.

And if they did have a weapon, I wonder if they implemented Joe Biden’s now-often-quoted advice that, to protect your home, you should “get a shotgun…and fire two blasts outside the house….” After all, he promised that doing so would frighten away anyone trying to get in.

I wonder if the family had guns that were, as Biden advocated Thursday night, “responsibly secured” with trigger locks. If so, I guess they didn’t manage to get them unlocked in time.

But whether or not there was a gun or guns in the home, and whether the family might have had at least a fighting chance against this violent criminal, the incident seems to prove something that’s especially unhelpful to those who claim that proposals for more restrictive gun laws are not “about taking away anyone’s rights” but are, instead, “about protecting children… about protecting families…about protecting whole communities.” One might even say that the incident shoots holes in the gun control narrative.

What this incident proves is that, no matter how many laws are passed to restrict innocent people from having the means to defend themselves, criminals will always find ways to have guns, because criminals, by their very nature, neither respect nor follow the law. And it also proves that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

Author’s Note: Stu Tarlowe has, since 2010, contributed well over 150 pieces to American Thinker.