• 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

America Can Be Beautiful!

'Summer Afternoon' (1865), by Asher Brown Durand

‘Summer Afternoon’ (1865), by Asher Brown Durand

Some artists only gain recognition and praise long after they’re gone, while others are popular in their own time. Asher Brown Durand is firmly in the latter category. Born in 1796, Durand was among the most admired of all American landscape painters of his era. He began his career as an engraver and those skills endured in Durand’s later move to oil painting, where his attention to minute detail—including, it seems, in every branch and leaf—was obvious. But the masterful handling of light was due to Durand’s discerning eye, and that talent was at least partly responsible for his popularity with collectors. This technical precision combined with a sublime sense of light helped define the art movement Durand belonged to—the Hudson River School.

Isolating America!

June 14, 2022

American Individualism Is Being Extinguished By The New Elite

By Frank Liberato at American Thinker:

America has always been an accommodating home for misfits, loners, and others who have drifted outside the mainstream of society. One of the more appealing aspects of the American experience is that you don’t have to belong to get along. You can make your way in the world or find success and happiness without the approval of your fellow man. That type of independence is a rare commodity and has long been a sore spot for the purveyors of “group think.” The overbearing pressure of conformity has been, to a large extent, the way of the world before 1789 and the ultimate freedom manifesto—the Constitution of the United States.

Throughout history, men have been ostracized, banished, exiled, or destroyed simply for not fitting in. For not conforming. As with all things, there were exceptions to the rule but it was a rule nonetheless. America turned that rule on its head when the emphasis changed from the top down to the bottom up for the purpose of governance. Authorities and dictators no longer arbitrarily conferred and revoked privileges. We have rights that are now acknowledged as having been endowed by God. They can’t be taken away by men.

Thus did the individual find his rightful place as the nexus and primary force in society. This was no small accomplishment and it empowered people to strive for success and personal betterment no matter what their station in life, their level of education, or their social skills. This historic change in the role of the individual has driven the prosperity, accomplishment, and the monumental attraction that has always been America.

The resurgence of the authoritarian state was, however, inevitable and the Founding Fathers anticipated its occurrence. Their solution was limited government, which they then built into the constitution. Limit the “necessary evil.” Limit the “group think.” But as sure as night follows day, the failure to curtail government expansion heralded the revival of the authoritarian world. A dark, colorless world of absolute control and dismal existence where people are forced by their peers, their employers, and their governments into docile compliance and acceptance of the most oppressive forms of coercion and intrusion into their lives.

One doesn’t have to look too deeply to see the manifestations of this puppet society. From carbon copy propaganda outlets masquerading as news agencies to outrageous bureaucratic efforts to snuff out the rights and autonomy of the individual.

The aristocracy that we fought long and hard to be rid of is back with an unholy vengeance. The new aristocrats demand a renewed acceptance of their superior station along with a vastly diminished standard of living for the average person. Their war on the middle class and the Bill of Rights is so thoroughly immoral that it’s difficult for most people to believe it’s happening.

Their arsenal includes endless crises, wars, pandemics, social unrest, and fraud. The very air we breathe is their greatest weapon. They frighten people into believing that it will not sustain a livable environment for even ten more years if we can’t learn to live without meat, heat, freedom, and autonomy. They then renew the threat every decade with a slightly different tenor and tone.

Where the left can’t succeed from the inside, they look to their international friends for help in subduing the recalcitrant American citizenry. The UN wants to register and track the sale of ammunition in the United States as a backdoor way of undermining the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, the Biden administration is crashing down the front door as they try to pass legislation that would outlaw most of the guns that Americans now possess.

Image by Andrea Widburg

The Second Amendment was more about defending the country from a corrupt and overzealous government than it was about self-defense. Now, however, in an increasingly violent and lawless nation, there are very few ways left for Americans to defend themselves from thugs of all varieties.

When the new aristocracy met in Davos to try and legislate our diets, their plates overflowed with foods the average American can no longer afford. They refrained from such indulgences on “future food Wednesdays,” when they would pretend to choke down the “marriage of alternative proteins [i.e., bugs] with local and seasonal produce” that they would have the rest of us consume every day.

They’ll decide for us what cars we’ll be allowed to drive and whether we’ll be permitted to travel at all. They turn up their noses at our disgusting conveyances and the carbon footprint they stamp on the environment while their private jets are lined up by the hundreds. They do not fear the accusations of hypocrisy because they are above it.

The Biden administration is supporting a move to have the World Health Organization regulate international travel and oversee the implementation of a new vaccine passport. This would effectively cut off the freedom of movement for a large chunk of the American population. The number of people with travel restrictions would grow rapidly as the elites promote mobility as a privilege, not a freedom.

For those still in the dark, “the great reset” is simply the destruction of free enterprise, the middle class, and the Bill of Rights. The left will oversee the ruination of America and sweep the ashes into the dustbin of history. Their plan is well underway. The institutions designed to protect our country are now charged with overseeing and facilitating a massive invasion of our southern border.

The Democrats hold impeachment trials and lawless hearings based on complete fabrications the likes of which Joseph McCarthy would never have dreamt possible. They arrest and imprison their political opposition in purges that would make Mao and Stalin proud. Their courts have become a breeding ground for kangaroos and corruption. All this and more while the American people watch on in stunned disbelief.

Donald Trump did not lose the election in 2020. Many of us knew this immediately. We witnessed the fraud firsthand as insurmountable leads disappeared in minutes. We needed no further proof but it has been forthcoming anyway. With the release of Dinesh D’Souza’s film “2000 Mules,” there can be little doubt left in anyone’s mind that there was an organized effort to steal the election. Only if you don’t want to believe it could you ignore all the evidence.

Elections are the lifeblood of our wounded and faltering system of government. Every other year we hear the stale old reminders about how important a particular election is but this year is different. This 2022 election is, without a doubt, the most important of our lives. It will decide the future of elections and their relevance. The future of liberty. There have been some reforms, in some states, to the voting process but the primary method of fraud—the mail-in ballot—is still in place.

We are told repeatedly that there is a red wave coming and that the Republicans will take back the house. Only if we ignore the media and all the talking heads in Washington can we hope to make this wave a reality and turn it into a tsunami. Complacency and optimism are our enemies. We must not only win fair and square but also overcome all the fraud that is surely going to play a part in this election. We must turn out in numbers that will leave no doubt. Only then will we be able to once again “breathe the free air” and begin the long process of renewal.

Frank Liberato is a pseudonym.


 JUNE 14, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at PowerLine:


President Biden spoke today at the AFL-CIO quadrennial convention in Philadelphia. I have posted a video of the whole thing at the bottom. Biden is in his element and the torrent of lies is tough to take. The White House has not posted a transcript.

As usual, Biden builds himself up by comparison with “the last guy.” In the world according to Biden, life under Donald Trump was a nightmare for the average American. It’s recent history and therefore should be difficult to rewrite at this early date. I don’t think that’s the way the average will remember it today.

RNC Research has posted a few clips you may prefer to the whole painful thing. Whole lotta lyin’ goin’ on.


You may not know it, but these are the good times.


More of the same. Woo hoo!


Biden’s tribute to unions is a blast from the past. He whispers into the microphone for the big lie (claiming to have “cut the deficit”). He reverts to old man shouting: “I don’t wanna hear any more of these lies about reckless spending!”

He has some helpful budgetary advice for middle-class families struggling to cope with inflation (“so if portions of that [monthly expenses] go up one of the ways to deal with inflation for families is to bring the other costs down”). The help he means to provide for such families comes in the form of government subsidies of one kind or another Reminder: he doesn’t want to hear about lies about reckless spending! He asserts that child care costs $12,000-14,000 a month in Philadelphia, New York and Chicago.

He stumbles through his greatest hits for the union crowd. He’s going to increase something “expodentially.” Not a joke! He really means it. Republicans want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and so on, and worse.

He’s got big plans that Republicans are blocking. “It’s a lot of money and a lot of jobs!” He wants to increase taxes on corporations. He wants to increase taxes on the wealthy. The repeatedly slurred speech is beyond my power to interpret in a few places. If the White House posts a transcript I’ll be back with more.

Quotable quote: “When I think global warming I think ‘jobs.’”

A New Kind Of Treaty!?

Biden launching “unprecedented” plan to stop human smuggling?

by JAZZ SHAW Jun 14, 2022 at HotAir:


U.S. Customs and Border Patrol

This year’s Summit of the Americas, hosted by Joe Biden in California last week, was controversial, to put it kindly. With Mexico sitting out in protest and a number of other nations either being denied access or refusing to attend in protest, we’re left to wonder how binding any agreements that were reached will wind up being. We may be learning at least part of the answer to that question as soon as this week. Joe Biden signed the United States onto a new agreement called the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection (LADMP). One aspect of the agreement calls for a crackdown on human trafficking and child trafficking across all the borders in North and South America. That sounds great in principle, but as with all matters involving foreign policy under this administration, the devil is in the details. You can read more about it in this report from Government Executive.

The Biden administration has deployed 1,300 federal personnel to the U.S.-Mexico border to help quell human smuggling operations, which it said has led to thousands of arrests.

President Biden announced the initiative as part of an international agreement unveiled last week to provide more support to migrants while boosting efforts to curb and process large swings in migratory patterns. Twenty nations in the Americas signed onto the Los Angeles Declaration on Migration and Protection, which will boost assistance for refugees and asylum seekers, increase pathways for legal immigration, better coordinate border management systems and improve emergency response. Biden announced the agreement on Friday at the Summit of the Americas in Los Angeles.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Homeland Security Investigations has sent 700 officers to the border to support the crackdown on human smuggling as part of what the administration is calling Operation Expanded Impact. Other task forces and operations housed within the departments of Homeland Security and Justice are identifying suspicious activities and leading investigations.

If this specific initiative is structured properly and handled well, it’s a great idea. One of the many terrible things to come out of the Biden border crisis has been the surge of coyotes not only smuggling adult illegal aliens over the border but also trafficking children. Stopping or at least significantly reducing that would be well worth the investment.

With that said, the information about this new agreement contains far more than just the laudable goal of reducing human trafficking. And even that effort raises a few questions. First of all, where did the President suddenly find 1,3000 federal agents to send to the border to deal with illegal immigration issues? If we had that many ICE officers hanging around with nothing better to occupy their time, why were they not down on the border already?

The descriptions of the various agenda items in the LADMP go far beyond stopping smuggling. The primary thrust seems to involve “assistance for refugees and asylum seekers.” But the vast, vast majority of people we’re encountering at the border do not follow the customary process of applying for a visa or other forms of permission to come here seeking asylum before traveling. They are people who simply show up at the border, often crossing illegally and then presenting themselves so they can begin the asylum process. We have limits on such applications for a reason, as much as we might wish to help everyone. Our system is already overwhelmed. This sort of “assistance” sounds like it will only make matters worse.

In a more general sense, this “declaration” sounds an awful lot like a treaty, doesn’t it? And yet Joe Biden has signed us up for it with no input from Congress (where all treaties must be approved in advance according to the constitution) and no debate among our representatives. It’s very much like the Paris Climate Accord that Barrack Obama roped us into in a similar fashion. Of course, much as we saw happen with the Paris accords, a future president could yank us out of the LADMP just as Trump did with the climate conference.

It’s time for Congress to grow a spine and step up for the constitutionally mandated powers of the legislative branch. Presidents are not allowed to commit us to these sorts of international agreements that will involve significant expenditures of taxpayer dollars without the legislature signing off on it. And yet we seem to keep letting one president after another get away with it.

Europe’s Plan Toward Wind and Solar Energy…..



German economist Hans Werner Sinn identifies six major problems with Europe’s fanciful plan to transition to wind and solar energy:

Problem no. 1: The Paris Accord is non-binding

The Paris Accord in fact has been signed by only 61 of 191 nations and so pledge to reduce their emissions, i.e. more than two thirds of the globe’s nations are not obliged to do anything.

This will simply allow the rich signatories to outsource their emissions to unconstrained nations. China and India both end up with a free pass. The Paris Accord will have no effect on global emissions and citizens of rich countries will be forced to make huge sacrifices. We’re seeing it today already.

Problem No. 2: EU targets are “utopian”

The former IFO head calls the EU’s targets “utopian” and adds: “Germany at the same time wants to exit coal and nuclear power, thus making itself dependent on other nations.” Like Russia.

The belief that the EU can power itself solely using volatile renewables like wind and sun is kept alive purely by “propaganda media”. In fact it is doomed to fail.

Problem No. 3: Volatile energy supply

Prof. Sinn explains that another major problem is: “Electricity from wind and sun is too volatile to assure an affordable and complete power supply. Even if Germany doubles it’s current wind and solar production capacity, doing so will only double the volatility of the supply:

As the chart above shows, a doubling of the 2019 wind and solar capacity would lead to numerous times of severe oversupply and periods of extreme undersupply for Germany’s roughly average 60 GW of demand.

Problem No. 4: Innovation through government decreed central planning?

“Europe is squeezing out the auto industry and violating the law of ‘one price’. The market as a discovery process to innovate low CO2 technologies is being shut down,” Sinn explains.

Instead of allowing the market to naturally find the best and most efficient solutions, Brussels is simply doing it by decree. In the end, we’ll end up with a failed centrally-planned economy.

Problem No. 5: E-cars are not clean

One problem today already, using Germany’s current electric energy supply mix, electric cars are emitting far more CO2 over their lifetimes than conventional combustion engine vehicles.

Even after 150,000 km of driving, a diesel Golf-class car emits less CO2. Chart: H.W. Sinn.

Yet, governments are aiming to force citizens to drive e-cars. In many countries, this will lead to more CO2 emissions, and not less.

Problem No. 6: Europe going without fossil fuels will have zero global impact

According to Prof. Sinn: “With tradable fossil fuels, Europe going without will not have just a tiny effect, but rather have no effect.”

Whatever fuels Europe opts not to use, other countries will simply burn them instead. As long as global oil production keeps growing, so will CO2 emissions – no matter what Europe does, decrees or decides

Sinn’s conclusion:

Europe’s unilateralism with climate policy will undermine the competitiveness of its industries, initiate its downfall and thus discourage other countries from following the the European – and especially the German – approach.


Pelosi again declines to pass SCOTUS safety bill

JAZZ SHAW Jun 14, 2022 8:01 AM ET

 Share  Tweet  

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

It’s been more than a month since the Senate passed a new bill that would enhance safety and security for Supreme Court justices by unanimous consent. During that time, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy has attempted to accomplish the same feat in the House several times and he did so again yesterday. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi once again shot down the request. She’s sticking to the same excuse she’s used all along, but at this point, it has long since become obvious that the Speaker is engaging in a delaying tactic for political purposes. And last night, McCarthy called her out for it. “You’re trying to delay it,” he said. “That’s exactly what you’re doing.” (National Review)

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Monday expressed frustration after House Democrats declined his third request for unanimous consent to quickly advance a bill to increase security for Supreme Court justices.

McCarthy has tried several times over the past week to advance the measure — which passed the Senate last month but has stalled in the Democrat-controlled House — after authorities foiled an alleged assassination attempt against Justice Brett Kavanaugh on Wednesday.

“For the 3rd time in a week, I’m calling for a vote for stronger security for Supreme Court Justices—ALL of them,” McCarthy said on Twitter. “This isn’t partisan. The threat is real. Why is Speaker Pelosi blocking something that the Senate has already passed unanimously?”

In the time since the bill first passed in the Senate, the number of threats received against the conservative justices has skyrocketed. Nicholas John Roske was arrested on his way to try to assassinate Brett Kavanaugh. And anti-abortion activists attempted to stage an insurrection by shutting down the operation of the Supreme Court. (Hey… if you can call January 6 an insurrection, then this was an insurrection also.)

The argument that Pelosi and the Democrats are sticking with is that the bill should also include the same level of protection for staff members who work for the justices. It’s an attempt at virtue signaling, implying that they care even more about the lives of everyone at the Supreme Court.

Of course, there are two major flaws in that supposed logic and they should be obvious even to the casual observer. The first is the fact that covering every clerk and staff remember at the court would drive up the manpower and cost requirements by at least a factor of ten, if not more. It’s highly unlikely that you could even find that many qualified security personnel to go to work on short notice even if the cost was no object.

But more to the point, who do you suppose is lurking out there thinking to themselves that they could somehow prevent the decision in Dobbs from being handed down if they murdered a clerk? Have any of the clerks and other staff members received any death threats? Here’s a better question. How many of you can even name one of the clerks at the Supreme Court unless you’re a personal friend or family member of one of them?

There aren’t any maniacs out there hunting down the person responsible for restocking the coffee filters at the Supreme Court building. The maniacal pro-abortion extremists are gunning for the Chief Justice and the five Associate Justices who were appointed by Republicans. Nobody is going after Sotomayor, Kagan or Breyer. The fact that Chuck Schumer’s devotees have helpfully posted all of their home addresses online has made the job all the easier. As a side note, I just Googled the names of a couple of SCOTUS clerks (who I obviously won’t name here) and did a search to see if their addresses are available. There isn’t a peep about them except in their own, private social media accounts.

I’m not sure who Nancy Pelosi thinks she’s scoring points with by doing this. The only sane people who would possibly object to this are the ones hoping for a clear shot at any of the justices who might have voted the “wrong” way in Dobbs. And they’re already going to be voting for the Democrats anyway, assuming they’re not in jail and ineligible to vote.

Trouble, Trouble, and Trouble IN THE SUPREME COURT?

John Roberts’ Refusal To Release Dobbs Opinion Is Jeopardizing The Lives Of His Colleagues

BY: SHAWN FLEETWOOD at the Federalist:

JUNE 14, 2022

John Roberts giving a speech at Harvard Law School

Roberts’ refusal to issue the Dobbs decision has opened the floodgates for a bevy of continued threats and acts of violence against sitting members of the court from left-wing anarchists.

Since the infamous leak of the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) draft majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization last month, Americans have waited with bated breath for the high court to issue its verdict on the constitutionality of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which federally legalized abortion in the United States.

Despite high expectations that the court would release its final Dobbs opinion—which is expected to deem Roe unconstitutional—on Monday SCOTUS instead issued a series of less contentious opinions, once again leaving millions of Americans in limbo. The high court is set to release more legal opinions on Wednesday, with notable cases pertaining to gun rightsschool choice, and the regulatory power of the Environmental Protection Agency also awaiting publication.

While the leaked Dobbs majority draft opinion striking down federally legalized abortion has generated enthusiasm from pro-life activists, the prospect of SCOTUS overturning Roe has pushed an already unhinged left to the breaking point. Since the draft’s publication in Politico, leftists have repeatedly shown up in droves at the homes of the Republican-appointed members of the court in order to harass and intimidate the justices into keeping Roe in place.

Last month, the left-wing activist group Shut Down D.C. organized a demonstration outside of Justice Samuel Alito’s Virginia home “because it’s been impossible to reach him at the Supreme Court,” with participants shouting phrases such as “our bodies, our voice!” and “Alito is a coward.” Threatening demonstrations have also taken place at the Virginia home of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, with the radical pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us recently encouraging its supporters to target Barrett’s home, children, and church.

“If you’re in the DC metro area, join us. Our protests at Barrett’s home moved the needle to this coverage,” the group said in a tweet. “Falls Church is a People of Praise stronghold. She sends her seven kids to a People of Praise school that she sat on the Board of Directors for. She attends church DAILY.”

While possessing the power to arrest and charge demonstrators, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, who himself was once a SCOTUS nominee, has instead chosen not to prosecute violators of 18 U.S. Code § 1507, which outlaws picketing outside a judge’s home “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.”

The most heinous of the left’s intimidation tactics, however, came last week when a deranged leftist was arrested outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh for planning to assassinate the judge for his purported support of overturning Roe. In addition to being buried by the New York Times, the story received no coverage by any of the major Sunday news shows on ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN.

President Joe Biden has also neglected to directly acknowledge the attempt on Kavanaugh’s life, with the only response from the White House being a statement from Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates that said Biden “condemns the actions of this individual in the strongest terms.”

John Roberts Has Failed His Fellow Justices

After the Dobbs draft opinion was released, Chief Justice John Roberts announced the launch of an investigation to find the individual who leaked the majority opinion to Politico. Not only has Roberts’ investigation cataclysmically failed to out the leaker and hold this person accountable for his or her actions a month later, the chief justice’s continued withholding of the Dobbs decision has concurrently endangered the lives of his colleagues.

As noted by Federalist CEO Sean Davis, Roberts “could issue Dobbs today and eliminate threats of violence to prevent its release,” but is instead “deliberately doing nothing.”

“What conclusions can be drawn other than that Roberts is fine with what the leak has wrought, and that he’s fine with the prospect of violence and assassinations precluding the release of a Dobbs release overturning Roe v. Wade?,” Davis said.

According to prior reporting, Roberts plans to oppose the overturning of Roe alongside the court’s Democrat appointees, with the chief justice allegedly attempting to sway Justices Barrett and Kavanaugh to join him.

Rather than releasing the Dobbs opinion as soon as possible, Roberts appears to be withholding the decision until the end of the court’s term, which would mean the ultimate fate of Roe wouldn’t be publicly known until late June or early July. If this is the case, such irresponsible and feckless decision-making indicates that Roberts is seemingly fine with the ongoing threats against his colleagues, some of whom (like Barrett and Kavanaugh) are parents of young children.

Just as his caving to public pressure on the court’s 2012 Obamacare case gave Democrats license to harass and bully SCOTUS, Roberts’ refusal to issue the Dobbs decision has opened the floodgates for a bevy of continued threats and acts of violence against sitting members of the court from left-wing anarchists until the opinion is released. If Roberts truly cared about the institution of the high court and the safety of his fellow justices, he would quit whatever political game he’s playing and release the opinion that could end the trigger for these threats to the justices and save millions of innocent babies across the country.

Will Crooked Hillary Ever Pay A Penny FOR HER POLITICAL CRIMES?

Clinton’s Debunked 2016 Russia Hoax Was Far Worse Than What Happened On Jan. 6

BY: JORDAN BOYD at the Federalist:

JUNE 13, 2022

Hillary Clinton on TODAY

It was Democrats who objected to every Republican-won election this century, in the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections.

Author Jordan Boyd profile

by JORDAN BOYD at the Federalist:

Everyone who bought Hillary Clinton’s prepaid lies about Trump colluding with Russia to steal the presidency she was “born” to win participated in a far more damaging scheme to cast doubt on an election than anyone who ever wondered why “Sleepy Joe” Biden received more than 81 million votes in the 2020 election.

When Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016, nearly half of Democrats said they believed the election was rigged. After all, all they had heard for months was that Trump worked with a sworn American enemy to secure a seat in the White House.

This was a patently false lie based on a debunked document bought by Trump’s political enemy and her sleazy legal team. There’s not a shred of evidence from Special Counsel Robert Mueller nor anyone else that Trump worked with Russia to meddle in the 2016 election. As a matter of fact, those who have been legitimately charged, arrested, and put on trial for lying have all been from Clinton’s side.

Yet, it’s still a deception wielded by American elites, Swamp bureaucrats, and the propaganda press and reinforced by outfits such as the Pulitzer Prize board which has thus far refused to rescind any of its awards for false New York Times and Washington Post reporting on the collusion hoax.

When the time came to certify the 2016 election and solidify Trump’s role in the White House, House Democrats attempted to object. These representatives cited concerns over the now-disproved Russia hoax and potentially “hacked” voting machines.

That didn’t stop the corporate media and Democrats from claiming that questioning the security of our elections was a threat to our democracy in 2020, though. In the end, more Democrats denied that Trump won the 2016 election than people who claimed Biden wasn’t legitimately elected in 2020.

Now, Democrats are using their manufactured hysteria about Jan. 6, 2021 to cover up the fact that the 2020 election was marred with last-minute changes and chaos, some legal and some illegal, and influenced by Big Tech and oligarchs like Mark Zuckerberg who paid hundreds of millions of dollars to meddle with election processes in swing states.

The sham Jan. 6 Committee wants Americans to believe that the Republicans who raised questions about election integrity during the 2020 election are criminals. But they conveniently forget that it was Democrats who objected to every Republican-won election this century, in the 2000, 2004, and 2016 elections.

They also conveniently forget that it was their leftist allies in the corporate media, woke academia, and on the Hill that lobbied for state electors to vote against Trump, no matter what their state’s vote tally indicated.

President Joe Biden earlier this year cast doubts on the legitimacy of the upcoming 2022 midterms but somehow I don’t think Jan. 6 Committee head Bennie Thompson, or Nancy Pelosi-appointed, disgraced Republican Rep. Liz Cheney, plans to call him to the stand.

During the 2020 election, tens of millions of questionable mail-in ballots swamped our election system and millions more Americans lost trust and confidence in the country’s ability to host “free and fair elections.” But Democrats on the illegitimate Jan. 6 Committee are too busy picking at the speck in the GOP’s proverbial eye to see the plank in their own.

Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and co-producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire and Fox News.

Reviewing Elections!

June 13, 2022

Why Democrat Poll Numbers Are Worse Than You Think

By John Kudla at American Thinker:

Before the 2020 presidential election, I became curious about political polls claiming that Joe Biden had a ten-percentage-point lead over Donald Trump.  At that time, Trump was addressing crowds in the thousands.  When he was not barricaded in his basement, Biden was lucky to draw a crowd of a hundred.  That did not seem right.

So I did some research and concluded that the polls were undercounting Republicans.  In one of the articles, which you can read here, I predicted the silent Trump vote to be north of two percent of the electorate.  I was not the first to consider this, but I was one of the first to make a prediction.

Polling organizations would not admit their polls were biased against Republicans.  However, it turned out my estimate was too low by half.  In fact, the polling error for the 2020 election was roughly 4% nationwide, the largest in the last 40 years.

Fast-forward to today.  Inflation is 8+ percent, the price of food and gasoline is way up, crime is up, there is a nationwide shortage of baby formula, and don’t get me started on the border crisis.  Yet Joe Biden’s job approval is close to 40% positive.  That means almost four out of every ten Americans think Joe is doing a good job if you believe the RealClearPolitics average.  And I don’t.

It is possible that Biden’s job approval is being helped by positive coverage from the news and social media.  But I am not buying that, either.  Spin can go only so far, and even rank-and-file Democrats have to fill their gas tanks and buy groceries.

The big difference between today and two years ago is that pollsters will now admit that their results are systemically biased against conservatives.  For example, in an article published in Vox, pollster David Shor said:

For three cycles in a row, there’s been this consistent pattern of pollsters overestimating Democratic support in some states and underestimating support in other states.  It happened in 2018.  It happened in 2020.  And the reason that’s happening is because the way that [pollsters] are doing polling right now just doesn’t work.

Pollsters face two fundamental problems.  One is developing an accurate voter turnout model that predicts who is likely to vote.  The other is getting an unbiased measurement of what voters think, known as a random sample.

The turnout model is usually based on demographic distributions and historical voting records.  If pollsters get the model wrong, it can bias their results.  For example, in the 2020 election, most turnout models did not account for Republicans who rarely vote, participating in larger numbers than predicted.

The second problem is getting a random sample of the electorate.  Unfortunately, in recent elections, this has become increasingly difficult to do.  Although there are several theories as to why this is happening, it boils down to two issues.  One is technology, and the other is a lack of trust in political polls.

As recently as the 1990s, pollsters could count on getting a random sample of responses to telephone surveys, but not anymore.  Although most Americans have a cell phone, prohibitions on auto-dialing cell phones mean that pollsters continue to call landlines.  This is problematic because landlines have a different demographic from the general population.  And many of them have Caller ID, allowing voters to see who is calling.

According to Fairleigh Dickinson associate professor Dan Cassino:

Caller ID, more than any other single factor, means that fewer Americans pick up the phone when a pollster calls.  That means it takes more calls for a poll to reach enough respondents to make a valid sample, but it also means that Americans are screening themselves before they pick up the phone.

The trust issue is a societal problem that has been building for many years.  Due to partisan infighting, some voters have lost faith in our national institutions; politics; and, by association, political polls.  This issue affects conservatives more than liberals, causing a polling effect called partisan nonresponse or nonresponse bias. 

Partisan nonresponse is a phenomenon where low-trust conservatives opt out of participation in the polls and are replaced by higher-trust liberals.  So why are conservative voters opting out?  Pollster Nate Silver has two theories:

First, Republicans are becoming more distrustful of institutions and society, and that may be extending to how they feel about pollsters.  Second, suburban Republican college graduates are more likely to fear professional sanction for their views and are therefore self-censoring more, including in surveys.

High-trust voters are basically the opposite.  They tend to be highly educated, liberal, and more enthusiastic about talking to pollsters.

Independent pollster Richard Baris believes that the reason for Democrat bias is where they are polling.

You have to look not just at who[m] you poll, but where you poll.  The way they’re polling, they are reaching voters that skew too urban.  In that case, your Republican sample will be stacked with the John Kasich … and Bill Kristol Republicans[.] … [T]hat’s not the Republican Party that gave the presidency to Trump.

Pollsters say they are open to new methods of contacting voters besides landline telephones.  And they intend to research which voter groups may be missing from their samples.  But will that correct the polls for nonresponse bias?

According to Shor, the answer may be no.

Qualitative research doesn’t solve the problem of one group of people being really, really excited to share their opinions, while another group isn’t.  As long as that bias exists, it’ll percolate down to whatever you do.

Let’s see if anything has changed since 2020.  If you average the two 2020 October polls from New Jersey, Biden is leading by 22 points.  According to the Cook Political Report, he won by 16 points, a miss of 6.  In the 2021 New Jersey state election, polls overestimated Governor Murphy’s margin of victory by 5 points.  Apparently, the Democrat bias did not change in New Jersey.

If you averaged the final four polls from Virginia in 2020, Biden leads by 11.5 points.  He won by 9.4 points, a miss of 2.1.  In 2021, the polls seemed to have got it right, predicting a Youngkin margin of 1.7 percent versus the actual result of 1.9.

However, we see a different picture if we focus on the one outlier poll included in the Virginia average.  The outlier is Fox News at Youngkin +8.  If we remove the Fox News poll, the average changes to Youngkin +0.4.  Therefore, the adjusted polling average underestimated Youngkin’s support by 1.5 percentage points.  So the Democrat bias is still alive and well — just masked by one flawed poll.

On top of nonresponse bias, another fly in Democrat approval numbers is that most polls currently sample registered voters rather than likely voters.  Nate Silver believes that midterm polls of registered voters tend to lean toward Democrats.

We estimate that on average in midterm years since 1990, registered voter polls have had a 2.6 percentage-point Democratic bias — compared against likely voter polls, which have been unbiased.

If the polls are overestimating approval numbers for Biden and other Democrats, how bad is it?  The political climate today is different since the 2020 election, but the Democrat poll bias seems intact, which was 4% nationwide.  Since nonresponse bias, 4%, and registered voter bias, 2.6%, should be mutually exclusive, we can add them together.  This gives us a total Democrat bias of roughly 6.5%

What does this mean?   Until pollsters switch to sampling likely voters right before the election, you can subtract a solid 6 percent from Joe Biden’s approval numbers.  And if nothing changes before the election, any Democrat who leads by 3 percent or less is likely to lose.

Democrats had better pray I am not underestimating the number of hidden Republican voters, as I did in 2020.


Kellyanne Conway: Let’s face it, Biden’s going to run again

ALLAHPUNDIT Jun 13, 2022 at HotAir:

The question of whether Biden will run almost feels like a logical paradox because the answer can’t possibly be yes but it also can’t possibly be no.

It can’t possibly be yes:

“The presidency is a monstrously taxing job and the stark reality is the president would be closer to 90 than 80 at the end of a second term, and that would be a major issue,” [David] Axelrod said.

“Biden doesn’t get the credit he deserves for steering the country through the worst of the pandemic, passing historic legislation, pulling the NATO alliance together against Russian aggression and restoring decency and decorum to the White House,” Axelrod added.

“And part of the reason he doesn’t is performative. He looks his age and isn’t as agile in front of a camera as he once was, and this has fed a narrative about competence that isn’t rooted in reality.”

Biden is currently below 39 percent approval at RCP. Even if you could magically make him 25 years younger, Dems would still be considering their options for 2024.

So it can’t possibly be yes. But it can’t possibly be no. Name me one other Democrat of any national prominence who would realistically expand the Democrats’ coalition as nominee. And don’t say Michelle Obama, as there’s zero evidence that she’s interested.

Kamala Harris? She’s less popular than Biden. She’d almost certainly underperform his margins among white voters, especially working-class whites, without adding votes elsewhere.

Pete Buttigieg? Black voters have no use for him. And I’m skeptical that an openly gay candidate can get elected president, at least running as a Democrat.

Bernie Sanders? He’s older than Biden and far easier to attack as a radical.

Elizabeth Warren? Also unlikely to connect with minorities and easy to attack as radical. For all of her agitation on behalf of the working class, she comes off as the embodiment of the Ivory Tower.

Stacey Abrams? By November, she’ll be a two-time loser in Georgia and still won’t ever have held federal or statewide office.

Who else is there? This party has no bench whatsoever. Even if you want to throw a curveball by naming a dark-horse populist like John Fetterman, Fetterman’s health crisis is frightening enough that voters will probably deem him a nonstarter due to his condition.

Democrats desperately need a candidate with strong working-class appeal to shore up black support and claw back losses to the GOP among Hispanics and blue-collar whites. Which is why I had to laugh when I read this LA Times piece this weekend:

[Gavin] Newsom has signaled interest in the national political stage, publicly sparring with his Republican counterparts in Florida and Texas over pandemic management, abortion and gun restrictions. He recently suggested Democrats were too timid in responding to the U.S. Supreme Court poising to overturn abortion rights.

At 54, Newsom has time to choose an opportune moment to run. But it’s hard to imagine a bigger political stage than the one he’s on now as governor of America’s most populous state from which to springboard into a national campaign. He’s already demonstrated the ability to raise the vast sums needed to vie for California’s highest office, with more than $23 million on hand after spending $5 million in the primary.

“He’s got a fantastic base — 10% of the national population — and massive amounts of money available to him,” Sabato said.

I can’t remember who said it but someone once described Newsom as a glass of Chardonnay in human form. Virtually no one who lives outside his home state believes his home state should be a model for anything. California is where Americans used to dream of living; now Californians dream of living elsewhere, including Mexico. Newsom is also known primarily as a left-wing culture warrior, not an economic populist, at a moment when left-wing culture warriors have alienated the working class. In the public imagination, his state has become a byword for brazen property crime and widespread homelessness. Every criticism Americans have of San Francisco and Los Angeles can be hung around Newsom’s neck in a national election.

Who on earth would be eager to vote for that? Which blue-collar voters willing to consider a Democrat in 2024 will find themselves galvanized by a slicked-back wokester whose state seems more dystopian each year?

A few days ago, Ruy Teixeira begged his party to appreciate its “Chesa Boudin Moment” and use it to try to reconnect with working-class Americans. Imagine if the primary electorate’s response to that was to say, “Yeah, let’s nominate Gavin Newsom.”

So Democrats are hemorrhaging support among Asian voters, alienating other nonwhite voters with their lax approach to public safety and losing many formerly loyal white liberals and moderates who are “mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”. What to do?

The answer seems clear to me. It’s time for Democrats to adopt former UK prime minister Tony Blair’s felicitous slogan: “Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”. Conservative outlets like Fox News may exaggerate but voters really do want law and order—done fairly and humanely, but law and order just the same. Democrats still seem reluctant to highlight their commitment to cracking down on crime and criminals because that is something that, well, Fox News would say.

This has got to stop. Weakness on crime damages the Democrats’ brand and especially hurts some of their most vulnerable constituents.

Would Gavin Newsom be an upgrade from Joe Biden in being perceived as “tough on crime”?

Biden’s going to have to run. And yet he can’t possibly run. He’s running, the White House said today — but they have to say that. If they betrayed any hint that he might not run again, he’d lose whatever leverage he has over Congress and internationally.

Here’s Kellyanne Conway reasoning that Biden’s going to run again because he wants to and there’s no way to get rid of him. I think if party leaders went to him and explained that he can’t win, he’d do the right thing. Remember, once upon a time, Biden described himself as merely a “bridge” to a new generation of Democratic leaders. Considering how weak their bench is, it turns out to be a bridge to nowhere.