• 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

Stop Those Fascists Who Have Been Destroying America Since Woodstock Days!

‘We The People’ Need to Stand Up for Our Nation

By Jack Miller at REAL CLEAR POLICY:
June 28, 2022

Our Constitution begins, “We the People, of the United States.” “We the People,” not some of the people or some groups of people – but all of the people.

Our Constitution continues by noting that it was instituted “in order to form a more perfect Union,” meaning that the Founders recognized the great imperfections of the union under our first national constitution, the Articles of Confederation. They then formed a government that was “more perfect,” meaning one that was better equipped to realize our nation’s vision.

What is that vision? It is embodied in the stirring words of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Those words set forth the vision that underlies the “more perfect union,” and the Constitution our Founders gave us lays out the means to secure that vision.

Did we achieve that vision in 1776 when the Declaration was written or in 1787 when the Constitution was created? Hardly. Has America achieved it now, almost 250 years later? No. But building on what our Founders gave us, we are much, much closer to living up to our Founding principles of equality and liberty for all.

The Founders knew that the Constitution they drafted was not perfect. It didn’t eliminate slavery, although it limited its spread. Even after the 13th Amendment officially outlawed slavery, the Ku Klux Klan embarked on lynching campaigns, and many Americans held prejudices of all kinds against those of other races.

Americans of certain races and religions weren’t allowed in many hotels, resorts, and other places and were barred from some universities. Fortunately, that historic type of prejudice has all but disappeared today.

Yet we are now at a moment in our history when the progress we have made is being reversed. Instead of getting closer to “We the people,” coming together as individuals, there is a movement fueled by some extremists to tear us apart.

We are a nation of over three hundred and thirty million people, the vast majority of whom are focused on living their lives, working hard, raising their families, and seeking to find happiness and fulfillment.

For the most part, they have been vaguely aware of the extremist fringe movement that has taken over and changed much of the curriculum and culture of our educational institutions. The same extremist fringe movement has taken our First Amendment right to peaceable assembly and turned it into violent mob rule. Our nation, which Americans always proudly said was dedicated to protecting the rights of all individuals, is now on the road to becoming a nation without respect for laws.

But that sliver of extremists and their nihilistic agenda now have gone too far, and many Americans are beginning to push back. Brave, concerned parents are campaigning for the recall of radical school board members and state attorneys general who have implemented “social justice” policies that are fomenting crime, violence, and anti-law enforcement sentiment.

Even some college professors are resisting the extremists. Recently it was a big news story when law scholar Ilya Shapiro resigned from an executive director position at Georgetown Law. After a four-month suspension for criticizing President Biden’s discriminatory rationale for a Supreme Court justice (poorly chosen words notwithstanding), Georgetown’s report effectively warned Shapiro that “corrective measures” would be taken for future “offensive conduct,” which would be judged by how people react, not the speaker’s intent.

As Shapiro wrote in his recent Wall Street Journal piece, “The freedom to speak is no freedom at all if it makes an exception for speech someone finds offensive or counter to some nebulous conception of equity.”

Our Declaration of Independence envisioned a free people exercising their rights responsibly, and it’s what we have been striving to achieve throughout our nation’s history. I don’t blame people for peaceably assembling to fight for their rights. But I vehemently resent their attempt to cast America as a failed nation. America is the freest, most prosperous nation in the world – a nation that has and is progressing toward realizing its vision, enshrined in our Declaration, of equality for all.

We’ve come a long way, and we can achieve much more if we continue to build on what our Founders gave us. So it’s now time for that vast silent majority within those three hundred and thirty million to speak out and push back. If we want to preserve this great nation of ours, silence is no longer an option.

Jack Miller is the founder and chairman of the Jack Miller Center, a 501(c)(3) organization that promotes the teaching of America’s founding principles and history by supporting professors and programs on campuses nationwide as well as courses for K-12 teachers that help them build engaging lessons for their students.

“But then along came President Trump”.  God Blessed America!

June 28, 2022

Thanking God for President Trump

By Clifford C. Nichols at American Thinker:

Years ago, while I was seriously dating a wonderful woman I had met at the church we both attended, I was having lunch with a friend who knew us both.    

He asked me, “How’s it going?”  

Attempting to be honest and transparent, I responded, “She’s great, but she does have some flaws.”    

That was when my friend came back at me with the unexpected.      

“Then you must dump her immediately.  You owe it to yourself to move on and keep looking until you find that special someone who is perfect like yourself.”   

Now, there was some wisdom from an older man that as a younger man I couldn’t muster the fortitude to loathe.     

In fact, that is the same advice that comes to mind when I encounter those who attempt to hold to what they maintain is a higher moral ground — i.e. virtue signaling — by refusing, for now over six years, to look beyond the imperfections of President Trump, and at least simply acknowledge the host of ways by which he was able to accomplish good things for America since he first took office. 

This is not a reference to members of the progressive left who would maintain their hatred of Trump even if he was “scientifically” proven to be the second incarnation of Christ.      

Rather, it is regarding self-proclaimed conservatives — and particularly many professed Christians — who have continually maintained their disdain for this President, notwithstanding his accomplishments like twice enabling this country to experience a booming economy; controlling inflation; securing our borders; lowering our taxes; rebuilding our military; maintaining functional supply chains; providing us energy independence; and, keeping our gas prices reasonable.  And that’s before we even get to the return of many manufacturing jobs that previous administrations had allowed to be exported abroad.      

These are just a few of the things by which President Trump enabled so many people to once again be proud Americans.

But, looking forward, even these accomplishments are likely to pale in comparison to the unforetold miraculous events that are likely to continue coming our way for years to come due to his successful appointment of conservative judges, not only throughout jurisdictions across America, but especially those three vacancies he filled on the United States Supreme Court.     

A case in point: that Court’s decision last week to finally overturn Roe v.  Wade.   


Before the 45th President came on the scene, it is doubtful anybody in this country on either side of the aisle could have reasonably expected that to ever happen.    

But then along came President Trump.   

By successfully appointing highly qualified conservative judges like Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, he empowered the other two conservatives on the bench — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas — to join forces to accomplish what many prior to Trump thought impossible.   

All of which brings us all to an undeniable bottom line — without President Trump, this most likely would never have happened.  And this, in turn, leads us next to another undeniable conclusion: those who have sought the reversal of Roe v. Wade for years, and yet think they can still justify maintaining an anti-Trump moral high ground are deluded hypocrites.  Quite simply, such a position can no longer possibly be reconciled honestly on the basis of either reason or logic.   

As the dust settles, the truth is that consequent to the Supreme Court finally upending the illegitimate — i.e. judicially fabricated — constitutional protection previously afforded to the abortion industry, all of us committed to the upholding of the Rule of Law and the Constitution owe President Trump, at minimum, a heartfelt expression of our collective gratitude.  For it is also true that any quantum of appreciation we might extend to this President is only likely to be exceeded in the years to come from those millions of human beings who will be allowed to live and who, but for the President, might otherwise never been allowed to draw a breath or see the light of day.   

And for that, President Trump, on our own behalf and on behalf of those yet to be born, we all — as a nation — THANK YOU … and the God who called upon you to have been our President at such a crucial time in our nation’s history.   

All of which brings us full circle around to hoping this monumental occurrence will allow us to also now include among those who are grateful the previously deluded among us who for the last six years — like a squeaky wheel — have been urging the rest of us to dump Trump and join them in their search for a better President who they suggest — like them — must be perfect.  

Clifford C.  Nichols is an attorney and the author of A Barrister’s TalesMy Unspeakable Kindergarten Experience with Kavanaugh and The Declaration of Liberty (2021 A.D.). 

America’s Dem Phony FBI In Action!



John Eastman counseled President Trump in the aftermath of the 2020 election. I have commented critically on his contribution to the events of January 6 previously, but today I want to draw attention to his close encounter with the FBI last week. Tucker Carlson included the video in his brief segment with John last night. It is chilling.


The AP covers the story here. Orin Kerr takes up the legality of the search and seizure in a Twitter thread here. We remain to be illuminated on the criminal law for which the FBI claims it has probable cause against Eastman. Late in the thread he notes that the warrant does not extend beyond the seizure of John’s phone (i.e., it covers seizure only).

Eastman’s close encounter with the FBI last week was obviously coordinated with the close encounters of Trump Department of Justice official Jeffrey Clark and Nevada GOP chairman Michael McDonald. The FBI appears to have taken up the role of the ruling party’s enforcement arm.

NBC News Anchor: “I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated!”

June 27, 2022

Media no longer trying to deny hostility toward Republicans

By Eric Utter

Mainstream media bloviators have increasingly begun to state that Republicans do not deserve equal coverage alongside their Democrat counterparts.  These figures often falsely claim that Republicans seek to “end our democracy” and that they routinely traffic in falsehoods.  Ergo, there’s no need to be fair and balanced.

For example, on a recent edition of MSNBC’s The ReidOut, Joy Reid and her guest, political analyst Mathew Dowd (Bush-Cheney 2004 chief strategist turned Democrat), preposterously asserted that media outlets in general were too neutral in their reporting on the Republican Party and should instead ramp up the hostility.  Reid also urged reporters to “tell voters” that the GOP is a “threat” to freedom. 

Remarkably, Reid queried Dowd on how the media might “get out” of this ill advised “‘both sides’ trajectory.”  Dowd replied that the media should start acting as if they were living in a society that isn’t free — and treat Republicans accordingly.  Like state-run mouthpieces in Russia, China, and North Korea?  Great idea!

A week prior to the Reid-Dowd fiasco, CNN primetime host Don Lemon stated that journalists no longer live in a “Walter Cronkite society” and that he should therefore be able to “state [his] truth.”

During a recent discussion with Los Angeles Times columnist Jackie Calmes (on her piece condemning “both-siderism”), CNN host Brian Stelter also questioned whether Republicans should be given the same coverage as Democrats.  He asked, “Is it that we’re treating Democrats and Republicans equally and ignoring GOP radicalism?  Is that the heart of the problem?”  No, quite the opposite, Brian.  Hence your network’s plummeting ratings.  By way of illustration, one Harvard study found that CNN’s coverage of President Trump during his first 100 days in office was 93% negative versus just 7% positive.  The same study found that CBS’s coverage was 91% negative and The New York Times’ 87%.  By contrast, mainstream media outlets slobbered all over themselves in incessantly praising Barack Obama.  That is not treating Democrats and Republicans too “equally.”  And that cannot be good for our representative republic.

And, last March, NBC News anchor Lester Holt actually said, “I think it’s become clear that fairness is overrated[.] … [T]he idea that we should always give two sides equal weight and merit does not reflect the world we find ourselves in.”  It certainly doesn’t, Lester.  Why give your news audience both sides of the story when you can just tell them what the “truth” is?

This acknowledgment — and encouragement — of the end of an objective “mainstream” media/free and fair press is unprecedented and surreal, at least in the modern era.

Is it a good idea for those in the media to tell everyone that they are no longer even going to pretend to treat the two parties equally, while they otherwise blather on about “inclusion,” “fairness,” “justice,” and “saving our democracy”?

Yet this has not stopped them from blasting Fox News and the few other right-of-center media outlets as being “biased.”  In fact, they will probably double down now and increasingly label them as “far-right extremist” organizations.  Henceforth, it will be considered fair and objective to blast any entity that doesn’t share your views…as long as you are “progressive,” and they are not.

And those in the media wonder why so few people trust them now?

The Jan. 6 Committee Is Lying!

Exclusive: Former White House Staffer Confirms Jan. 6 Committee Lied About DOJ Attorney

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

JUNE 27, 2022

January 6 Committee

‘This isn’t about truth, but about making it impossible for conservatives to successfully enter and leave government.’

Author Margot Cleveland profile


Over the weekend, former Department of Justice lawyer Ken Klukowski called on the Jan. 6 Committee to release the full transcript of his deposition testimony to correct the lies they told about him to the American public. Now The Federalist has exclusively obtained a statement from a former White House staffer confirming Klukowski’s claims.

Last Thursday, the Jan. 6, 2021 show trial continued, with the Democrat-stacked committee presenting testimony concerning a draft letter Jeff Clark, a former assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice, proposed sending to the Georgia legislature.

That draft letter, dated December 28, 2020, stated the Department of Justice was investigating the 2020 election and recommended the Georgia legislature convene a special session to “evaluate the irregularities in the 2020 election including violations of Georgia election law,” and “determine whether those violations show which candidate for President won the most legal votes in the November 3 election.” The draft letter then suggested the General Assembly could appoint an alternative set of electors based on its findings.

The draft letter’s signature line included spaces for Clark, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey A. Rosen, and Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue. But when Clark pitched the idea of sending the letter to Georgia officials, Rosen and Donoghue rejected the idea out of hand, because it was “not the department’s role to suggest or dictate to state legislatures how they should select their electors,” and “for the department to insert itself into the political process this way,” Donoghue told the committee, “may very well have spiraled us into a constitutional crisis.”

Donoghue was blunter with Clark in person, with Donoghue testifying he told Clark, “What you are doing is nothing less than the United States Justice Department meddling in the outcome of a presidential election.”

While last Thursday’s hearing by the Jan. 6 Committee centered on Clark and his efforts to have the letter sent to the Georgia legislature, the committee connected another DOJ attorney to Clark’s efforts, Klukowski—and did so by blatantly lying to the American public.

The Jan. 6 Committee Is Lying

Klukowski called out the Jan. 6 Committee’s fraud over the weekend in a public statement that began: “The January 6 Committee falsely accused me on Thursday of being a go-between in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election. That accusation is false both in its broad outlines and its details. Since the Committee first contacted me, I have cooperated without hesitation, provided it with hundreds of documents, and sat for many hours of recorded depositions. The information produced from those efforts fully contradicts the Committee’s statements regarding my actions, yet the Committee has chosen to keep such information to itself rather than share it with the public.”

The former DOJ lawyer then detailed in his public statement four false accusations levied against him by the Jan.6 Committee. First, Klukowski exposed Rep. Liz Cheney’s false portrayal of him as being sent by John Eastman to work under Clark. While Cheney fraudulently told the country that Klukowski “was specifically assigned to work under Jeff Clark,” Klukowski provided the committee documents establishing that his transfer to “the Civil Division of the DOJ was in the works since July 2020, long before Jeff Clark was the acting head of that Division.”

In an interview with The Federalist over the weekend, Klukowski stressed that during questioning by the Jan. 6 Committee—which exceeded more than 12 total hours—he made clear that he had been working on the transfer since mid-summer, hoping to move to the DOJ civil division to obtain more litigation experience, and that the transfer had been preliminarily approved in September 2020. Klukowski added that he also provided the committee detailed information that would allow them to confirm his testimony.

“I told the committee that I spoke with Camellia Delaplane, then a DOJ liaison to the White House who handled personnel placement, and provided the House Committee the date, September 10, 2020,” Klukowski told The Federalist. “I also suggested the committee review our email exchanges confirming my testimony, since they clearly had access to that information.”

Evidence Backs Up Klukowski’s Statements

Klukowski added that even before he met with Delaplane he sat down in July with the White House staffer responsible for coordinating senior DOJ appointments, Andrew Kloster. Klukowski told The Federalist that he shared with Kloster his desire to move to the DOJ civil division.

When reached by telephone yesterday, Kloster confirmed these details, adding even more texture to Klukowski’s recollection of the meeting.

“As a part of my oversight over the senior legal hires, I reached out to Ken, because I knew he had been one of our best at the Office of Management and Budget. Ken told me that he wanted to pivot to conservative public interest litigation, so rather than heading to be an agency deputy general counsel or general counsel in a Trump term two, I pushed to move him to DOJ’s Civil Division,” Kloster told The Federalist. Kloster added, “that meant a lot of back end process that took time, including speaking with Klukowski’s boss, with other White House officials, and with the Department of Justice.”

“Ken’s transfer had nothing to do with the election,” Kloster confirmed, telling The Federalist his discussions with Klukowski occurred months earlier.

Kloster then took aim at the House committee: “The January 6th investigation is all about attacking mid-level and senior staff like Ken, to ensure that we don’t have a farm team in 2024, no matter who the president is. This isn’t about truth, but about making it impossible for conservatives to successfully enter and leave government.”

Public Record Confirms Klukowski’s Account

Not only did Kloser confirm Klukowski’s account, as did the various documents accessible to the Jan. 6 Committee concerning the timing and purpose of the transfer, the public record confirms Klukowski sought litigation experience in the civil division. Specifically, in the brief 36 days that Klukowski served in the civil division—a fact Cheney presented as suspicious—Klukowski argued and won two federal appeals (completely unrelated to election issues) in the Ninth Circuit, including a complex and important case involving abstention.

Klukowski also denounced the committee for falsely suggesting he was working with Eastman to convince Vice President Mike Pence that Pence had the power to reject electors from various states based on “ongoing disputes” over the election. The committee spun that narrative by highlighting “an email recommending that Mr. Klukowski and Dr. Eastman brief Vice President Pence and his staff,” apparently on that theory.

However, as Klukowski detailed in his public statement, he “never briefed or advised Vice President Pence, or his staff, regarding any matter, including the 2020 election or the January 6 joint session of Congress,” and any “outside suggestion that [he] do so was not made with my involvement.” Klukowski went further, though, noting that “had anyone, including the Vice President, asked, I would have expressed my view that I disagreed with John Eastman’s theory on the powers of the Vice President at the January 6 joint session of Congress.”

During his weekend interview with The Federalist, Klukowski countered the Eastman theory, stating that “the opinion of Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas in Bush v. Gore explains what the Constitution has to say about how electors are appointed in presidential elections. Consistent with that opinion, my view has always been that December 14, 2020, was the deadline for appointing all such electors.”

In the statement Klukowski issued in response to the committee’s Thursday hearing, he stressed that he had told the committee those views in his “sworn testimony,” and had provided the committee “documents reflecting my expression of such views.”

A Mountain of Lies

Klukowski also took issue with the committee’s portrayal of him as an author of the letter, when in fact his role as Clark’s “subordinate was to commit his dictations and outline to writing and fill in legal citations at the direction of my then-boss over the course of a single day.” Klukowski said he had no knowledge that any of the statements included in the letter were false, nor that Rosen and Donoghue did not intend to sign the letter.

Nor was there anything in the content of the letter that suggested it represented part of a plan to execute Eastman’s theory to reject the electors. Again, Klukowski stressed that he “provided all of this information to the committee during [his] depositions.”

“I was concerned the committee might make cynical assumptions during its investigation of January 6,” Klukowski told The Federalist, “but, I was stunned that the committee would make claims about me for which it had a mountain of evidence establishing, for certain, those statements were false.”

Klukowski added that his deposition testimony—which easily ran in the hundreds of pages—would fully expose the committee’s presentation as fraudulent. Klukowski, however, told The Federalist that he does not have a copy of the transcript, which is why he called on the Jan. 6 Committee to release it to the public.

The Federalist contacted Cheney’s office to inquire whether the committee would release the full transcript of Klukowski’s deposition testimony, as requested, or if not, why not. The Federalist also asked whether she disputed any aspect of Klukowski’s statement, which when compared to the Jan. 6 Committee’s Thursday proceedings leaves but one conclusion: The committee fraudulently portrayed an innocent DOJ attorney as complicit in a conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election, and did so with malice.

Cheney’s spokesman did not respond to The Federalist’s questions. House Republicans, however, should not let the atrocious slurs spun by Cheney and the committee go unanswered, especially since the immunity provided by the Speech and Debate Clause prevents Klukowski from obtaining any sort of recompense from those who slandered him.

Republican leaders in the House should demand that the Jan. 6 Committee immediately release the full deposition transcripts for all witnesses—because if they fabricated Klukowski’s role in the alleged conspiracy, they likely lied about what other witnesses said as well.

Nothing Like NON-CITIZENS Voting!

NY Supreme Court strikes down law allowing non-citizens to vote

by JAZZ SHAW Jun 27, 2022 at HotAir:

(AP Photo/Brynn Anderson)

Proving yet again that there are no lengths the Democrats in New York won’t go to in their quest to pave the path toward amnesty, they passed a law in January that would allow non-citizens to vote in New York City municipal and local elections. The law was scheduled to take effect next year. Attempts to allow such residents – including illegal aliens – to vote in national and congressional elections had failed in the past, but they appeared confident that they could establish this as a first step on a longer path. Unfortunately for them, a judge on the state supreme court disagreed and struck down the law today as being in violation of the state constitution and agreed that it would cause “imminent harm” to registered citizen voters. Proponents of the law plan to appeal. (Gothamist)

New York City’s law extending voting rights in municipal elections to noncitizens who are legally allowed to live, work and go to school in the five boroughs violates the New York State Constitution, according to a ruling issued by Justice Ralph Porzio in Richmond County State Supreme Court on Monday.

Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella was the lead among a group of predominantly Republican plaintiffs who sued the city after the new law was enacted in January, arguing it would change how they needed to campaign. A group of voters who were plaintiffs in the suit also claimed their votes would be diluted by the new law, which was set to allow upwards of 800,000 new voters to register and vote in local elections starting in 2023.

In his ruling, Porzio sided with the plaintiffs, adding the measure also violated New York State election law and the municipal home rule law.

Judge Porzio didn’t have to do a lot of heavy lifting to reach this conclusion. In his ruling, he cited the precise wording of the state constitution. It reads, “citizens meeting the age and residency requirements are entitled to register and vote in elections.” Porzio emphasized the word “citizens” just in case anyone had missed the more subtle parts of the message.

The judge went on to further cite existing state election laws which also specify that “citizens” are entitled to vote. He additionally agreed with one of the plaintiffs in the case that their vote – as a citizen – could be severely diluted by allowing up to 800,000 non-citizens to vote in next year’s municipal elections. While agreeing with the opposition that the plaintiffs had not suffered any harm “today,” he concluded that “the harm they will suffer is imminent.”

Perhaps this ruling, if it is appealed far enough up the chain, will produce an impact on other places that have successfully implemented non-citizen voting. There are two places in Vermont that allow it, along with San Francisco. (Though in San Fran the non-citizens can only vote in school board elections.) The big hotspot is Maryland, particularly near the border with the District of Columbia. Eleven jurisdictions there allow voting in municipal elections by non-citizens.

NY GOP Chairman Nick Langworthy released the following statement after the ruling was announced.

This is a huge victory for election integrity, citizen rights, and the rule of law.

New York Democrats have tried time and again to illegally rig the system, but we have proven that when we FIGHT we WIN!

Whether it was their illegal gerrymander or this unconstitutional scheme to allow non-citizens the right to vote, Democrats are brazenly abusing their power and trampling on your rights.

This is simply one of those issues where the public should refuse to compromise. Voting is one of the most fundamental rights that allows the citizens of the United States to decide who is best fit to represent them and fight for them at all levels of the government. When non-citizens come to America legally and follow our laws, there is a way for them to gain the right to vote. It is by following the established pathway to naturalization.

But when you allow an army of non-citizens to show up (and the 800,000 in New York City literally represents a significant army) and start voting to change our laws and determine who represents us, you are thwarting the entire process. Democrats these days are fond of constantly talking about “existential threats to our democracy” that hardly seem to exist. If you want to see an actual threat to our democracy, look at this law that New York Democrats are trying to force through.


June 27, 2022

The Middle Class Needs to Start Thinking About Asset Protection

By Larry Alton at American Thinker:

The U.S. economy is suffering. The war in Ukraine, the lingering pandemic, federal stimulus money, and low federal interest rates (until recently) have each taken their toll.

Now we’re experiencing the highest inflation rate since 1981, stock values are plummeting, and gas prices are hitting all-time highs of over $5 (some places are even adding an extra digit to pump meters in anticipation of $10 gas).

This is why it’s more important than ever for Americans to get a grip on their financial security.  For all we know, we could be on the brink of another recession.

One way to boost your financial security is to guard the wealth you already have — aka asset protection.  Asset protection means protecting your property against lawsuits, bankruptcy, and creditor claims through legal means (not illegal means like concealment, contempt, fraudulent transfers, tax evasion, or bankruptcy fraud).

And since the poor have few assets and the wealthy are usually already familiar with asset protection, it is the middle class that most need to learn about asset protection strategies.

And the sooner you do, the better.  Once a claim or liability occurs, it’s typically too late to implement asset protection strategies.  Courts will view them as evasive, and you could get accused of engaging in “fraudulent transfers.”

So here are a few ways you can start protecting your assets today:

  1. Create an asset protection trust

Asset protection trusts (APTs) are trusts designed to shield your assets against creditors.  Basically, it’s giving ownership of your assets to a trustee and then designating yourself as the beneficiary.  There are two kinds of APTs: domestic APTs and foreign APTs (aka offshore trusts).

Domestic APTs are irrevocable (meaning you can’t modify them once they’ve been created) and are only allowed in 17 states, but they come with unique benefits like state income tax savings when situated in a no-income-tax state. 

Offshore APTs are simply APTs created abroad.  Popular sites for offshore trusts include the Cook Islands, Nevis, and the British Virgin Islands.  People use offshore APTs to make it harder for creditors to come after their assets and lower their tax liability — hence the term “tax havens.”  But they are usually more expensive to set up.

2. Leverage homestead laws

Many states have “homestead” exemptions that protect your primary residence and other personal property against creditors.  Homestead protections can be unlimited (like in Florida) or limited (like in Massachusetts, where you can get an exemption of up to $500,000).  Either way, homestead laws can be a great way to protect your primary residence from a forced sale.

3. Jointly own property under tenants by entirety

Tenants by entirety (TBE) is a way for married couples to share ownership of a property.  The combined ownership protects you against claims or liens directed only at you and not your spouse.  The only way creditors can go after an asset held under TBE is to have a claim against both spouses.

4. Establish a family limited partnership

A family limited partnership (FLP) is a way for family members to pool money together for a business venture.  You can be a general partner (meaning you are responsible for running the business) or a limited partner (you are only an investor).

What does this have to do with asset protection?  Well, whatever you invest in an FLP is protected from creditors under the Uniform Partnership Act (UPA).  So it’s another great way to safeguard your wealth.  Plus, you can gift FLP interests tax-free every year up to the annual gift tax exclusion ($16,000 in 2022).

5. Use retirement accounts

Retirement accounts are a great way to grow your wealth and limit your liabilities.  Most are protected against bankruptcy for up to $1 million through U.S. federal bankruptcy laws and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). And employer-sponsored accounts like 401(k)s even have unlimited protection.  So max out your retirement account contributions if you can.

6. Get insurance

Lastly, another way you can protect your assets is through various insurance policies.  You could invest in umbrella insurance to cover personal liabilities that go beyond regular homeowner, auto, and medical insurance.

Or, if you’re a physician, you could get malpractice insurance.  That way, unhappy patients can’t come after your assets.

And finally, you may want to invest in life insurance to replace your income if you die.  That way, your family will be able to keep paying the mortgage, auto loans, and other debts and not lose valuable assets.

Final thoughts

Those are just a few ways to protect your assets against creditors that might come in handy in a recession.

Some other ways to protect your assets include investing in income annuities, accounts-receivable financing (if you own a business), and asset transfers to family.

The point is you need to start thinking about asset protection strategies now before creditors start coming after your money.  If you wait too long, it might be too late.