• 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


JUNE 29, 2022 BY SCOTT JOHNSON at Power Line:


Matt Ridley is the co-author of Viral: The Search For the Origin of Covid-19. It has just been published in an updated paperback edition (in the UK, anyway). He summarizes “The case for the lab-leak theory” in a timely column for Spiked. It seems to me that Ridley makes a powerful case.

China has suppressed access to all information bearing on the lab-leak theory. Given that the CCP knows every jot and tittle of the evidence, its suppression is itself powerful circumstantial evidence in support of the lab-leak theory. Ridley confines this point to a glancing discussion in the penultimate paragraph:

In a court of law, a prosecutor would regard all this -available scientific evidence] as a strong case. “Of all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, she walks into mine,” he would probably say, quoting Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca. And then he would start going through the extraordinary litany of unhelpful obstacles that the Chinese government has put in the way of the World Health Organisation and everybody else who tries to get information on the early patients and what happened in the lab. When WHO investigators went to Wuhan in early 2021 they spent just three hours in the institute and visited the wrong lab (with the wrong biosafety level) on the wrong campus (in Jiangxia instead of Wuchang). As far as we know the WHO investigators were not shown the lower biosafety labs where the SARS-like virus work had been conducted.

This all goes to China’s responsibility for the spread of the virus around the world and the related enormities it has caused. For some reason, however, this is an issue that has dropped from the public view of the Biden administration. President Biden himself has directed his ire on these enormities to the guy who preceded him. It is, shall we say, disgusting.

I say Ridley’s column is timely because it arrives coincidentally with the revelation that, contrary to his public denials, Biden discussed Hunter Biden’s Chinese connections with Hunter. Josh Boswell reports on the voicemail message the Daily found from Joe Biden on Hunter’s cell phone in the excellent Daily Mail story “VOICEMAIL from Joe Biden to Hunter about NY Times report on his Chinese business dealings proves he DID speak to his son about his relationship with criminal dubbed the ‘spy chief of China.’” Boswell explains that the voicemail message comes from a backup of Hunter’s iPhone XS stored on his abandoned laptop.

The Daily Mail provides these handy bullet points for the story:

• Joe Biden called Hunter in December 2018 saying he wanted to talk to him after reading a New York Times story about Hunter’s dealings with the Chinese oil giant CEFC.

• Files on Hunter’s abandoned laptop previously disclosed by DailyMail.com show that he struck a deal with the Chinese company worth millions of dollars.

• The Times’ 2018 story pointed out CEFC’s chairman Ye Jianming had been arrested in China and his lieutenant Patrick Ho had been convicted of bribery.

• Hunter accidentally recorded himself referring to Ho as the “spy chief of China”

• After seeing the story online, Joe called Hunter and left a voicemail

• “I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear,” Joe said in the voicemail. [Miranda Devine explains that Biden was referring to a New York Times story about the arrest of Hunter Biden’s Chinese business partner Patrick Ho on bribery charges.]

• The message flies in the face of the president’s repeated denials that he ever discussed Hunter’s overseas business dealings with his son

Miranda Devine follows up in the New York Post column “Why Hunter’s dealings with China aren’t a ‘big fat nothing’ for his President father.” Tucker Carlson featured Devine in a segment whose video is posted in Geoffrey Dickens’s Media Research Center story “Networks CENSOR Joe Biden’s ‘I Think You’re Clear’ Voicemail to Hunter.” The Post has more here today. I have posted the MRC video below.


“This latest development in the Biden family pay-to-play scandal provides further proof a special counsel is needed to oversee the ongoing criminal probe”.

Joe Biden’s Voicemail To Hunter Means It’s Time To Appoint A Special Counsel

BY: MARGOT CLEVELAND at the Federalist:

JUNE 29, 2022

Joe Biden and Hunter Biden

This latest development in the Biden family pay-to-play scandal provides further proof a special counsel is needed to oversee the ongoing criminal probe.

Author Margot Cleveland profile


In 2018, while Hunter Biden was reportedly under investigation for his dealings with Chinese businessmen, Joe Biden left a voicemail message telling Hunter: “I think you’re clear.” This latest development in the Biden family pay-to-play scandal provides further proof a special counsel is needed to oversee the ongoing criminal probe.

In an exclusive, The Daily Mail on Monday reported that a voicemail recovered “from a backup of Hunter’s iPhone XS,” stored on his abandoned MacBook laptop, captured Joe Biden leaving this message for Hunter on December 12, 2018: “Hey pal, it’s Dad. It’s 8:15 on Wednesday night. If you get a chance just give me a call. Nothing urgent. I just wanted to talk to you. I thought the article released online, it’s going to be printed tomorrow in the Times, was good. I think you’re clear. And anyway if you get a chance, give me a call, I love you.”

The New York Times article referenced by the now-president, entitled “A Chinese Tycoon Sought Power and Influence. Washington Responded,” detailed the dealings of two corrupt Chinese businessmen, Ye Jianming and Patrick Ho—both of whom had connections to the Biden family through CEFC China Energy.

Ye acquired CEFC in 2006, according to the Times article, with the business focused on “securing the rights to overseas oil fields in strife-torn places like Chad, South Sudan, and Iraq.” “From 2009 to 2017, CEFC’s revenues jumped from $48 million to $37 billion,” the Times reported, noting that Ye’s first outreach to the Biden family came in 2015.

The Washington Post, which independently authenticated Hunter’s abandoned laptop months after its pre-election discovery, likewise reported that emails recovered from the hard drive showed that an intermediary for CEFC first “reached out to Hunter Biden in December 2015 to set up a meeting between the then-vice president’s son and Ye.”

The proposed 2015 dinner didn’t happen, but the Times article reported that an aide to Ye would later meet Hunter. Then, in May 2017, Hunter met with Ye in Miami. During that meeting, Hunter reportedly “offered to use his contacts to help identify investment opportunities for Ye’s company, CEFC China Energy, in liquefied-natural-gas projects in the United States.” As a thank you, Ye sent a note of gratitude and a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter’s hotel room.

While the natural gas project discussed never materialized, in early August 2017, Hunter executed a consulting agreement with CEFC. It provided him a retainer of $500,000 and a monthly stipend of $100,000 while James Biden, Joe’s brother and Hunter’s uncle, pocketed $65,000 a month. According to the Washington Post, “over the course of 14 months, the Chinese energy conglomerate and its executives paid $4.8 million to entities controlled by Hunter Biden and his uncle.”

Then in November 2017, Ho, the CEFC vice-chairman and secretary-general, transferred to one of Hunter Biden’s entities $1 million, ostensibly for “representation.” Hunter, however, seemed to have no role in defending Ho, who was charged that month for crimes related to alleged bribes to officials in Chad and Uganda and attempting to arrange for CEFC to serve as a middleman with Iran to avoid sanctions. Following his arrest, Ho also called James Biden, although James believed the call was likely meant for Hunter.

In 2018, when the article that prompted Joe Biden’s messages hit, the millions in payments from CEFC to business ventures controlled by Hunter Biden were not known. Thus, at the time, the Times merely reported, “it is unclear whether Hunter Biden struck any business deals with CEFC or Mr. Ye.” Since then, the public has learned both of the multi-million-dollar connection between Hunter and CEFC and of a video showing Hunter calling Ho “the f-cking spy chief of China who started the company that my partner [Jianming], who is worth $323 billion, founded and is now missing.”

Also unknown when the Times ran its December 2018 story was that Hunter Biden was himself purportedly under investigation for his business dealings with CEFC. A month after the 2020 election, however, CNN reported that federal prosecutors in Delaware were investigating Hunter Biden’s business dealings, specifically his dealings in China and with CEFC. Significantly, in its report, CNN claimed that two people briefed on the Hunter Biden investigation claimed it “began as early as 2018.”

That Joe Biden told his son “I think you’re clear” in relation to reporting discussing Hunter’s connection with CEFC, and that this assurance came just one week after Ho’s conviction while Hunter Biden was reportedly under investigation for his business dealings with Ye and Ho, raises the question of whether Joe Biden had any inside information concerning the investigation of his son.

A related question concerns the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act wiretapping of Ho. According to The Daily Mail article that broke news of Joe Biden’s voicemail message, the outlet had obtained a copy of a FISA surveillance order that “revealed that federal agents were monitoring Ho as a potential spy for China.” That surveillance likely continued, at a minimum, until Ho’s arrest in late 2017, meaning that the FISA surveillance likely swept up some communications with or about Hunter Biden.

Even if not, the evidence continues to mount against the Biden family, leaving two fundamental questions: What is taking the Delaware U.S. attorney so long? And why hasn’t a special counsel been appointed yet?

Margot Cleveland is The Federalist’s senior legal correspondent. She is also a contributor to National Review Online, the Washington Examiner, Aleteia, and Townhall.com, and has been published in the Wall Street Journal and USA Today.

That Lefty World of The Uneducated American

June 29, 2022

False Values Proliferate in Higher Ed

By Jack Wisdom at American Thinker:

Riding the New York City subway this afternoon, this deplorable saw a sign advertising the new City University of New York (CUNY) ASAP program.  ASAP stands for Accelerated Study in Associate Programs. This program provides additional support and funding for students in two-year community college programs and is supplemented by another program for four-year students.  These are giveaway programs to incentivize more students to go to college and stay in college and to participate in the leeching mindset that has attacked our culture.

These programs are an extension of the premise that students are kept from their true goals because of economic stresses.   Money is thus the main obstacle to progress towards a degree, either towards an AA degree (Associate’s two-year degree) or a B.A. degree.  Thus, students with special needs, minority students, students of color, non-English speaking students (as a first language), students without means to attend school without working, students with criminal records, students who cannot decide what to major in, students who have low level reading or math abilities, students who have trouble organizing their time in order to get their work in on time, students with drug or alcohol problems, students without regular access to a computer, students whose parents repeatedly tell them they will never amount to anything, students who have served time in any local juvenile or adult detention facility, and students who are raising one or more illegitimate children will get additional financial incentives that may enable them to stay in school and hopefully finish at either a two-year or four-year City University institution. The taxpayer will pay for the additional emoluments to these student sub-groups.

The thinking behind the establishment of these programs has a longstanding and dishonorable history.  In education, we can trace the progressive vision embodied in these programs to Jonathan Kozol’s best-selling book Death At An Early Age published in 1967. Just as Dr. Benjamin Spock’s book at the end of WWII, Babies and Child Care published in 1946, eventually sold 50 million copies and revolutionized child care in the direction of greater permissiveness, Kozol’s book convinced educators and parents throughout the country that in order to fulfill the promises inherent in education we needed to throw much more money at our schools, especially in our urban areas which were overwhelmingly racist.

Further, Spock and Kozol were both openly leftist in their politics.  Kozol was thrilled by the educational experiences he witnessed in Castro’s Cuba.  A focused article about his political allegiance appeared in City-Journal in the year 2000 which stated, “Taking as his starting point the crude Marxist view that education in all societies is ‘a system of indoctrination,’ …. he worked out a method by which teachers could subvert capitalist America’s bad indoctrination and—cleverly and subtly—substitute some good left-wing indoctrination in its place.”

Lastly, in 1943 one of the leading founders of so-called humanistic psychology, Abraham Maslow, came out with his “hierarchy of needs.”  These were human needs that had to be met as the individual sought self-actualization.  Although Maslow did not identify with a particular politics, the emphasis on needs strangely identified him with Marxism because of Karl Marx’s saying that under communism the principle that would be fulfilled would be “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” This was at odds with classical Western thinking that, going back to the Greeks, emphasizes rationality, goodness, and justice as the highest intellectual and moral goals of humankind, and with Christianity which emphasizes the revealed moral law of an omniscient, everlasting, and perfect God – a law based on love for neighbor and love and obedience to God made possible by Jesus Christ. 

Although Maslow never expressly embraced the leftist position this writer is attributing to him, by putting self and actualization at the center of his theories, Maslow was actually a revolutionary trying to overthrow the historical foundations of society, not unlike Marx and his ilk.  Yet at the same time, he preferred the term humanist to the term communist.

The above theories represent three errors in post-WWII America.  We see the elevation of self (Maslow), contempt for urban school systems supposedly mired in neglect and racism (Kozol), and the sophomoric view that indulgence and affection should take first place in parenting (Spock here undermined the building of good character which comes from the centrality of spirituality in the family). These errors are repeated in the new ASAP and ACE systems of CUNY.

Before even looking at the list of some of the benefits being offered, it should be asked if financial dependency is consistent with the goal of intellectual and professional independency that inherently has a claim on college graduates?  Thus, one of the benefits listed by CUNY is “a dedicated advisor to guide your progress from entry to graduation.” To what extent will a student who has had this so-called “dedicated advisor” be able to function competently once they graduate as a teacher, nurse, computer adept, radiology technician, etc.?  Or will they continue to need a dedicated advisor to take them through the specifics of their employment minute-by-minute and day by day once they get through this program dependency. 

This writer had to have a test administered in a New York City hospital a few months ago, and the nurses assisting the doctor could not get the equipment put together for the test. A third nurse had given me a dressing gown to put on after taking off my clothes, but the doctor told me I did not have to take off my clothes.  It was a comedy of errors from beginning to end.  Will we see a further explosion of these confusions as students increasingly depend on “dedicated advisors?”  Teaching in a four-year CUNY, I was asked by a student before the Covid pandemic “How many sentences in an essay?” and another student asked about an exam question, “Do you want an introduction and conclusion?”  Will the dedicated advisors answer questions like these before they arrive in class? 

Here is a list of some of the other promised benefits of this new program:

(1)Free unlimited MetroCards [used in NYC public transportation]; (2)Textbook assistance to reduce (or eliminate) the cost of textbooks; (3) A scholarship covering tuition and mandatory fees for any gap left after applying your financial aid award (for students receiving financial aid); (4) Special registration options that help you get the classes you need that also fit your schedule; (5) Opportunities to take classes with fellow ASAP | ACE students to foster community and build your network.  The students are thus totally financially dependent on the system.  And we can wonder if they will receive these benefits even if they cut classes.  “To foster community” in the previous list likely means the administrators will make sure that you are able to contact other students to find out what work you missed, and perhaps get assistance from your peers to be able to complete the work.  You see: the message of the ASAP initiative is “your problems are our problems.”  You are part of a village now.  Yes, Hillary Clinton is hidden behind the curtain orchestrating your success.  She and the whole community will make sure that you get through.



George Floyd had ‘violent criminal history’: Minneapolis police union chief

The head of the Minneapolis police union says George Floyd’s “violent criminal history” needs to be remembered and that the protests over his death are the work of a “terrorist movement.”

“What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd. The media will not air this,” police union president Bob Kroll told his members in a letter posted Monday on Twitter.

Floyd had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs, the Daily Mail reported.

Floyd died last week after a white cop kneeled on the 46-year-old black man’s neck for nearly 9 minutes, a shocking incident that was caught on video and is sparking widespread violent protests, including in New York City. Floyd had allegedly just tried to pass a phony $20 bill before he died.

“This terrorist movement that is currently occurring was a long time build up which dates back years,” Kroll said in his letter of the protests, adding that some of his city’s issues exist because Minneapolis leaders have been “minimizing the size of our police force and diverting funds to community activists with an anti-police agenda.

The union chief vowed that his organization would help the cop accused of killing Floyd, now-fired Officer Derek Chauvin, and three other officers who were at the scene and are being investigated.

“I’ve worked with the four defense attorneys that are representing each of our four terminated individuals under criminal investigation, in addition with our labor attorneys to fight for their jobs. They were terminated without due process,” Kroll wrote.


More Than a Stalinist Show Trial

Beyond the January 6 committee hearings, Stalinism advances on other fronts.

By Lloyd Billingsley at American Greatness:

June 25, 2022

As Thaddeus McCotter contends, the reproduction of a “Stalinist show trial” is now live in Washington. That invites a look at the original production of 1936-1937, from one of the keenest observers at the time. 

“The Moscow trials, and the purges that followed them, were a turning point in the history of American liberalism, for it was irrevocably polarized by the controversies to which the trials gave rise,” explains the late philosopher Sidney Hook in Out of Step: An Unquiet Life in the Twentieth Century, published in 1987. As Hook recalled, “news of the trials burst like a bombshell.”

The principal defendants were “all old Bolsheviks, Lenin’s comrades in arms, who had been glorified as heroes of the October Revolution until they fell out of favor with Stalin. Chief among the defendants was Trotsky, acknowledged by Stalin as the architect of the Petrograd insurrection that had placed the Bolsheviks in power.” 

As Hook wondered, “had architects of the great experiment been agents of the Western secret police?” The notion was “inherently incredible,” and the charges against Trotsky, Bukharin, Radek, and others were “mind-boggling.”

The heroes of the October Revolution, Stalin contended, had assassinated Kirov in 1934, 

planned the assassination of Stalin under the direction of Trotsky, and “conspired with fascist powers Germany and Japan to dismember the Soviet Union, in exchange for services rendered by the Gestapo.” They were also charged with “sabotaging five-year plans, putting nails and glass in butter, inducing erysipelas in pigs, wrecking trains” and so forth.  

All the defendants “confessed with eagerness,” but as Hook recalled, “equally mystifying was the absence of any significant material evidence.” Leon Trotsky, then in exile, “charged that the trials were an elaborate frame-up and defendants had been compelled by torture to play self-incriminating roles.” 

For American Communists and fellow travelers, the charges and confessions were all genuine. “My greatest shock,” Hook writes, “was the discovery that hundreds of liberals, proud of the progressive American heritage they had invoked in criticizing injustices in the United States, Germany and Spain, were prepared to turn their backs on it when questions were raised about justice in the Soviet Union.” 

The Dewey Commission of Inquiry, named for philosopher John Dewey, set out to determine the truth of the Moscow Trials. This commission “was spurned by liberals,” many of whom were swayed by Walter Duranty, Moscow correspondent of the New York Times. Sidney Hook was on to him from the start.

“At the height of the agricultural destitution and famine in the Soviet Union, brought on by the forced collectivization of the peasantry,” Hook recalled, Duranty “sent glowing reports about the state of the Soviet economy and countryside.” For Stalin’s best apologist, the Moscow Trials were 100 percent legitimate.

As The New Republic had it, Duranty “has been forced to the conviction that the confessions are true” and “it seems to us that the weight of the evidence supports Mr. Duranty’s views.” Trouble was, there was never any material evidence, even from Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev or any of his successors.

“If dark court proceedings were a rigamarole played out for some dark purpose of Stalin and his regime,” Hook writes, “then the promise of socialism was revealed as a mockery of the great humanist ideals.”

The dark purpose of Stalin (Iosif Dzhugashvili) was to eliminate his rivals. In that cause, “Stalin was prepared to violate every fundamental norm of human decency that had been woven into the texture of civilized life.” 

For Stalin, “rewriting history was in a sense a method of making it,” and this involved “the denial of objective historical truth.” By agreeing that the trials were legitimate, American liberals legitimized Stalin and the Soviet Communist regime. 

That regime rejected the rule of law, the presumption of innocence, and so forth, as so much “bourgeois” formality. The January 6 proceedings in Washington violate fundamental and longstanding norms of American justice. Witness the summary arrests, detention without trial, solitary confinement, denial of bail, withholding of evidence, and a lot more. 

Stalin aimed to eliminate his rivals, and the January 6 session targets Donald Trump, first and foremost. Democrats charge that Trump and his followers are guilty of an “insurrection.” The police shooting of Trump follower Ashli Babbitt, the only death by gunfire that day, is no object to the ludicrous charge. 

Stalin’s show trial boasted media defenders such as Walter Duranty of the New York Times. Duranty has been replicated by establishment media defenders of the current show trial. These are the same people who peddled the Russia and Ukraine hoaxes, with no regrets after both were proven false. 

Report Adabout:blank

Report Adabout:blank

Stalin charged that his fellow revolutionaries conspired with foreign powers. The January 6 proceeding maintains the fiction that Donald Trump got elected only by colluding with Putin, and that the American people had no role in his victory. The January 6 proceeding does not conduct audits or consider any evidence of voter fraud. It simply assumes that the 2000 election was the most secure in American history, with no comparisons of voter fraud in past elections. 

The Moscow Trials were all about Stalin, and it’s hard to exaggerate the veneration of this man by American academics, journalists and politicians. Sociologist Anna Louise Strong, for example, wrote in I Change Worlds that “one must not make a god of Stalin. He was too important for that.” At bottom, the January 6 proceeding is all about Joe Biden. 

By implication, the people of America were panting for a man who had achieved little if anything in all his years in the Senate. They wanted a man who has trouble with basic motor functions and memory; a delusional character who believes he served as a liaison during the Six Day War, when he was still in law school. America wanted a man who tells African Americans they “ain’t black” if they fail to support him, a man who says the Chinese Communists are “not bad folks” and not even competition for the United States. 

The Moscow Trials were also a diversion from the economic disaster Stalin had inflicted on the Soviet Union. The January 6 proceeding is a diversion from the disasters “Joe Incompetent” is inflicting on America. By implication, this is what the American people wanted. In the style of Voltaire’s Dr. Pangloss, Joe tells Americans they live in the best of all possible worlds. The Junta’s Duranty squads chide the people for failure to recognize the great job Joe is doing. 

“The economy is strong,” claims government-controlled National Public Radio, “but voters aren’t feeling it.” Tiffany Cross of MSNBC complains that Americans are “more concerned with saving money than saving democracy,” and “high prices” cause people to be less interested in the “compelling testimonies and evidence” in the January 6 hearings. That is indeed a Stalinist show trial and under the Biden regime, Stalinist conditions are expanding on other fronts. 

The “Disinformation Board” of the Department of Homeland Security, briefly “paused,” is being recast under the leadership of Kamala Harris, the beneficiary of poontronage from Democrat queenmaker Willie Brown. Professional propagandist Nina Jancowicz will doubtless be singing backup, and as with the USSR’s Pravda, the truth will be only what the government’s board declares it to be. In the best Stalinist style, American history is also being rewritten. 

According to the “1619 Project,” critical race theory, and so forth, America is a bastion of racist oppression. Except, that is, for the revisionists’ tenured positions at prestigious universities and media outlets, except for their high-level government jobs, except for their six-figure salaries, except for their generous benefits and gold-plated pensions, except for their stock portfolios, fancy electric cars, beach houses, and so on. 

Like those arrested on January 6, 2021, anyone less than worshipful of the Biden regime is a domestic terrorist. The Biden Junta also applies that description to parents who object to the racist indoctrination of their children. If Americans thought the nation was becoming more Stalinist by the day, it would be hard to blame them. 

Meanwhile, for the Moscow Trials and Stalinism in general, Sidney Hook’s Out of Step is hard to beat. For the current Stalinist show trial, read Julie Kelly, a one-woman Dewey Commission digging deep for the truth.

Lloyd Billingsley is the author of Hollywood Party and other books including Bill of Writes and Barack ‘em Up: A Literary Investigation. His journalism has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Spectator (London) and many other publications. Billingsley serves as a policy fellow with the Independent Institute.

Wisconsin’s Abortion Dems PLAN TO ABORT….PERIOD!

Wisconsin Gov: I’ll grant clemency to any doctor performing abortions

JAZZ SHAW Jun 28, 2022 at HotAir:

 Share  Tweet  

Stephen Voss/Pool via AP

Here’s an odd fact that I don’t recall hearing before. Were you aware that Wisconsin has had a law on the books banning almost all abortions since 1849? Even after Roe v Wade was decided, the law was never repealed. It simply became unenforceable. But now, after Dobbs, the law is technically back in effect. This has captured the attention of the state’s Governor, Tony Evers, along with his state Attorney General and other Democrats. Evers is facing a tough reelection bid this year and he must believe that the abortion question will be a political winner for him because he decided to seize it with both hands over the weekend. He promised to work to ensure that the law would not be enforced on his watch, but he also went one step further. He said that if any doctor was charged under the law, he would grant them clemency. (NBC News)

Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, a Democrat, vowed over the weekend to grant clemency to anyone charged under the state’s 1849 law banning most abortions.

That law, enacted more than a century before Roe v. Wade, has remained on the books in the state and has technically retaken effect following the Supreme Court ruling Friday overturning the landmark case.

Evers, Wisconsin Democratic Attorney General Josh Kaul and several county district attorneys in the state have said they would refuse to enforce it, but it remains possible that other officials — such as other district attorneys and newly elected state lawmakers — could enforce it now or in the future. Evers and Kaul are both up for re-election this fall, and both are facing tough races.

Governors are entitled to grant clemency for all manner of offenses, and if Evers were to do this there is little that could be done to stop him. Of course, that assumes that anyone is actually going to bring charges against a doctor this year, which seems far from certain. But his promise exposes yet another case of the executive or legislative branches of the government at any level coming into conflict with the judicial branch, and that’s a problem.

From Joe Biden’s criticism of the Supreme Court to situations like the one we’re seeing in Wisconsin, the system simply isn’t working as intended by the Founders. Laws are passed as needed by the legislators elected by the voters. The executive branch has the responsibility to enforce those laws. When asked to do so, the judicial branch reviews the laws to ensure they are constitutional. It’s really supposed to be just that simple.

But now we have the executive branch, both at the federal level and in multiple states, refusing to enforce existing laws and undermining the judicial branch by questioning their rulings, lessening people’s faith in the democratic process. And in the case of Governor Evers, even if law enforcement attempts to enforce this particular law and a judgment is rendered by a jury of the accused’s peers, the Governor is announcing that he will preemptively cancel that process in all such cases before he’s even been presented with an opportunity to review each case.

If the Governor doesn’t want to see this law enforced there is a way to ensure that doesn’t happen. And this applies to any law in his state, not just this Civil War-era abortion law. Convince a sufficient number of voters that the law needs to be repealed and encourage them to have their state legislatures do so. Then he can sign the bill doing away with the law and the problem will be resolved. But if there is insufficient consensus among the voters that the law needs to be removed and he thwarts it across the board anyway, you have a problem. That would be an example of blatant autocracy and a rejection of the democratic process.

Remind me again who is undermining democracy in the United States today? This is going on in far too many places and it involves issues ranging from abortion to gun control and beyond. (In New York, the Governor and the state legislature are already calling a hastily arranged session to try to thwart the Bruen decision.) If this situation fails to alarm you, I would suggest that you’re not seeing the big picture. This is about more than simply one policy or law. If you are in the majority and figure out a way to game the system in your favor, the shoe will eventually be on the other foot and your political adversaries will follow your example. We’ve seen the same scenario play out with the fight over the filibuster in the Senate. And it’s not going to end well, I fear. If the Democrats continue down this path, the shoe may be on the other foot far sooner than they might believe.




“Only 56% of Americans feel financially independent this 4th of July.”

Bidenflation: The price of a July 4th cookout is up 17% this year

by KAREN TOWNSEND  at HotAir: Jun 28, 2022

Remember last year when the White House proudly told us that we would be saving a whopping 16 cents on our July 4th cook-outs? The narrative at the time was that, hot dog! the Biden economic plan was working! The White House posted a corny tweet with the news. Good times, good times.


Even back then the rising price of gas countered any alleged good news in the economy.

Apparently, no one at the Biden @WhiteHouse has been to the gas station recently.

The average price for a gallon of gas is $3.15.

This is the HIGHEST price for a gallon of gas since 2014 and a 42% INCREASE from last year.

— Rep. Elise Stefanik (@RepStefanik) July 1, 2021

That was long before Putin’s invasion into Ukraine. This year I don’t think even the most arrogant members of Team Biden will try to convince us how great things are as shoppers buy groceries for July 4th celebrations this year. This year the total cost of a regular cook-out is up by 17%. Thanks, Joe! The same group that broke down costs last year did it again for this year. Blame soaring inflation and supply chain snags. Just don’t blame American farmers.

A new American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) survey found the average cost of a cookout is up 17 percent from 2021. Americans will pay about $69.68 for a cookout for 10 people, an increase of about $10 from the year prior.

Prices of ground beef, chicken breasts, pork chops, pork and beans, lemonade and other products have seen significant increases.

Economists from the AFBF attributed food and supply price hikes to ongoing supply chain disruptions, inflation and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

“Despite higher food prices, the supply chain disruptions and inflation have made farm supplies more expensive; like consumers, farmers are price-takers not price-makers,” American Farm Bureau Federation Chief Economist Roger Cryan said in a statement.

“Bottom line, in many cases the higher prices farmers are being paid aren’t covering the increase in their farm expenses. The cost of fuel is up and fertilizer prices have tripled.”

Beef and poultry, as well as pork and even lemonade and potato salad are all up this year. However, the survey did find a few things that are less expensive than last year.

The survey found the retail price for 2 pounds of ground beef increased by 36 percent from last year to about $11.12, while the average price of 2 pounds of chicken breasts increased 33 percent to $8.99. The price of three pounds of center cut pork chops increased 31 percent to $15.26. The cost of fresh-squeezed lemonade increased 22 percent from last year, while potato salad is 19 percent more expensive and hamburger buns about 16 percent more costly.

Some key cookout goods did see a drop in price from 2021. The cost of two pints of strawberries fell 16 percent, while a pound of sliced cheese fell 13 percent and a 16-ounce bag of potato chips fell 4 percent.

Many Americans are planning to spend less this year on July 4th celebrations this year because of Bidenflation. A recent WalletHub survey found that two-thirds of Americans plan to spend less money this year compared to last year. 57% said the reason is they are feeling the pinch of inflation. Some celebrations will be more restrained than people would like, especially after two years of pandemic restrictions. Non-essential purchases are not a part of plans despite greater freedoms this summer. Summer spending, in general, is predicted to be down.

The WalletHub survey was relatively small – 350 respondents – but it reflects national representation. Data by age, gender, and income was normalized to reflect U.S. demographics.

Inflation is hurting celebrations. 57% of Americans say that inflation is affecting their 4th of July plans.

Americans support USA goods. 65% of Americans say they make an effort to buy things made in the USA.

Financial independence is shaky. Only 56% of Americans feel financially independent this 4th of July.

Summer spending is down overall. More than half of Americans will spend less money this summer than last year.

Saving vs. spending. 64% of Americans believe saving money is more patriotic than spending it.

Most survey participants said they don’t plan to go holiday shopping this year. Again, the reason is inflation. It will be interesting to see what retail sales numbers are after the holiday as compared to last year.

second survey finds that inflation is taking a toll on mental health, too.

A separate survey conducted by LifeWorks found inflation is taking a toll on Americans’ mental health, especially among those who are unable afford basic needs due to soaring costs

The Life Works Mental Health Index released last week shows that people whose basic needs are going unmet because of inflation have a mental health score 16 percentage points lower than the national average.

Only 16 percent said inflation has yet to affect them, even though they expect it will eventually.

That would make sense. The availability of mental health access is often lacking during the best of times. With an increase of people feeling pressure today to keep up with higher prices on everyday necessities, mental health resources must be feeling the pinch, too. Times are tough in Biden’s America. No one is in the mood for happy talk about a few cents saved here or there this year.


 JUNE 28, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:


Abortion hysteria has overtaken the New York Times–not that hysteria is foreign to the former Gray Lady these days. This story by Carl Hulse isn’t news, it isn’t even an op-ed. It is a liberal’s temper tantrum. Hulse’s point is to blame Mitch McConnell for recent Supreme Court decisions with which he disagrees: “Mitch McConnell’s Court Delivers.” In the course of his screed, Hulse repeatedly gets the facts wrong.

Most incredibly, Hulse wrote that in Dobbs the Supreme Court banned abortion. This error raises, once more, the question whether the Times actually employs editors. Is it possible that a second pair of eyes approved that howler?

Glenn Reynolds says the Times stealth-edited that misrepresentation, but the way it still reads is bad enough:

Senate Republicans did not have to take the politically risky step of banning abortions; the court took care of the issue for them.

This makes no sense. Putting aside the constitutional question of whether regulating abortion is one of the federal government’s enumerated powers, in what world did Senate Republicans have the power to ban abortions, even if they wanted to do so? Without the House, apparently. Coherence is not a virtue of today’s New York Times.

The following also verges on the insane. I am including the full paragraph for the context of the last sentence:

Now Mr. Trump is gone from office, but the court he shaped remains as a bulwark against progressive initiatives on such subjects as climate change, gun control, the conduct of elections and campaign finance — all areas of great interest to Mr. McConnell and ones in which public opinion often diverges sharply from his own. Even if legislation that Republicans do not like somehow manages to escape Congress, they can now look confidently to the court to take care of it.

So the current Court stands poised to somehow invalidate any legislation that Democrats might be able to pass? That is an absurd claim on its face. And has the current Court been any more prone to strike down federal legislation on constitutional grounds than any prior court? Not that I am aware of.

Like so many liberals commenting on Dobbs, Hulse seems to assume that the case will be an electoral disaster for Republicans:

While much of the public recoiled at the decisions and the prospect of more to come in the years ahead…

If all of that seems like a perverse outcome in a democracy — a court that forces policies supported by the minority on the majority of the country — Mr. McConnell says that is as it should be.

Again, this is divorced from reality. As to abortion, the Court has not “forced policies” on anyone. It was Roe that forced an abortion policy on the entire country, like it or not, with no opportunity for democratic action. Dobbs doesn’t force anything on anyone; it restores the issue of abortion to the democratic process, where it belongs.

And it is by no means clear that Dobbs is as unpopular as liberals seem to assume. This morning Rasmussen published a survey that suggests the opposite:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 50% of Likely U.S. voters approve of the Supreme Court abortion ruling, including 38% who Strongly Approve of the decision, which means that each state can now determine its own laws regarding abortion. Forty-five percent (45%) disapprove of the Supreme Court’s new ruling, including 38% who Strongly Disapprove.

Finally, the Times distorts and misrepresents the recent history of Supreme Court nominations:

“It is a fact that Merrick Garland should be on the Supreme Court and Amy Coney Barrett should not be, and would not be without Mitch McConnell’s shameless manipulating of the process,” said Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut.

To my knowledge, there is no theory–let alone a plausible one–on which Merrick Garland should be on the Court, but Amy Barrett should not be.

It was Justice Scalia’s death in 2016 that opened the door to Mr. McConnell’s norm-breaking decision to stonewall Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick B. Garland for nearly a year.

McConnell’s decision not to move forward on Garland’s nomination was not “norm-breaking.” There was no precedent for the situation that then obtained–a nomination in an election year when the presidency and the Senate were held by opposing parties. McConnell’s theory was that in that situation, the Senate should not proceed but should await the outcome of the election. The Times doesn’t have to agree with McConnell’s position, but an honest newspaper wouldn’t misrepresent it, which is what the Times does in accusing McConnell of inconsistency.

It was not part of the original plan, but the vacant court seat produced what Mr. McConnell described as an “unanticipated” electoral bounce for Mr. Trump, helping him win the presidency.

Which would seem to contradict the Times’s implication that a conservative court is wildly unpopular.

Through the concerted efforts of Mr. McConnell and Donald F. McGahn II, the original White House counsel for Mr. Trump, three Trump-nominated justices were then pushed onto the court, culminating with the confirmation of Justice Barrett just days before Mr. Trump lost the 2020 election.

Please: they were “pushed onto the court”? Elsewhere the Times refers bitterly to “the strong-arm tactics that Mr. McConnell employed to install three conservatives on the Supreme Court.” This is whining masquerading as news. In each case, the president nominated a justice, hearings were held, and the Senate voted to confirm the nominee. In other words, the standard constitutional process was followed.

I feel sorry for anyone who reads the New York Times and suffers from the misapprehension that he is getting either accuracy or fairness in that paper’s reporting.

“Democrats see abortion as a big base motivator and a potential winning issue with independents,” claimed Politico.

Democrats’ Abortion Views Are Far Too Radical To Benefit From The Post-Roe Political Reality

BY: MOLLIE HEMINGWAY at the Federalist: JUNE 28, 2022

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life.

Author Mollie Hemingway profile

As soon as the Supreme Court issued its ruling finally overturning the Roe v. Wade abortion decision that had so roiled the nation for nearly 50 years, Democrats and their allies who control corporate media began asserting it would be a political boon for their party.

“Democrats see abortion as a big base motivator and a potential winning issue with independents,” claimed Politico.

Democrats could certainly use some help. The party controls all of Washington, D.C. Voters have indicated they’re prepared to deliver large Republican gains in November in response to a series of Democrat policy failures leading to a looming recession, labor problems, supply chain disruptions, high gas prices, rising crime, another foreign war without a strategy for victory, and a completely out of control border.

But there are several problems for Democrats hoping to stem the losses, including that the general Democrat position of abortion on demand until the moment of birth is far too radical to gain politically in most areas of the country. Even CBS polling found that only 17 percent of Americans agree with such an extreme stance.

The Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision, despite the media disinformation, simply returns abortion law to the states, enabling citizens and their elected representatives to debate and set abortion laws and policies. Roe had falsely decreed that a right to abortion was in the Constitution, and therefore beyond public debate, a view the court flatly and finally rejected last week.

Abortion is a hotly debated topic, and neither those who oppose or support it are likely to be fully happy about public opinion. Most Americans strongly oppose abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy, but most Americans also support some allowances for abortion at earlier stages in pregnancy. In May, a Gallup poll found that 63 percent of Americans support making abortion illegal or legal only in certain circumstances.

Mixed Bag Politically

While the decision may help Democrats hold onto a few suburban seats Republicans had hoped to wrestle back from the party in power, it is unlikely to help them in battleground states and districts where Republicans are experiencing dramatic gains. California and New York may be ready to pass even more radical abortion legislation, but not every state is as leftist as those are. And Democrats and the media are in for a rude awakening if they think everyone is as extreme as they are in their bubbles.

For example, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced his plans to pass protections for babies who have reached 15 weeks of age in the womb. That’s the type of popular protection that will pass in a swing state, but would be viewed as anathema for New York newsrooms. A recent Fox poll found that a majority oppose abortion after 15 weeks. Similarly, the Wall Street Journal found more support than opposition for 15-week abortion bans like those now permitted in America.

So take a state like Nevada. Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, the incumbent Democrat running for re-election, voted in May for a bill that would legalize abortion to the moment of birth, forbid states from enacting protections for unborn life, and expand taxpayer funding. Her opponent Adam Laxalt is endorsed by pro-life groups and supports at least some protections for unborn children.

As attorney general of Nevada, he signed onto a legal brief assisting the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were facing crippling fines from the Obama administration for not funding abortifacients. Is Cortez Masto’s radical stance really going to help her in a state where one out of every four residents is Hispanic, many of them Roman Catholic or evangelical? Is she really going to get major traction on her stance that it’s okay for children to have their lives violently ended in the womb for no other reason than they’re the wrong sex?

Pennsylvania also has a Senate race, and the Democrat nominee John Fetterman already publicly announced his support for the “ruthless” abortion-until-birth legislation Cortez Masto voted for. The legislation — which had bipartisan opposition but still had 48 senators and 218 congressmen voting for it — explicitly states the right to abortion on demand “shall not be limited or otherwise infringed.”

Fetterman is running against Mehmet Oz, who has stated he’s pro-life but would support popular exceptions to abortion bans. Is Fetterman’s extreme stance going to help or hurt him in November? Ditto New Hampshire’s Maggie Hassan.

In North Carolina, Democrat nominee Cheri Beasley has made abortion on demand through all nine months of pregnancy the central argument of her campaign. She wants federal legislation to codify this view. By contrast, her opponent Ted Budd says he thinks states should handle abortion law and he has focused his campaign on how to improve the economy.

Polls show that voters are dramatically more worried about the economy than focused on abortion. Traditionally, those who care the most about abortion tend to vote for Republicans. Even if Budd had an extreme pro-life position, and he doesn’t, the issue would probably break 50-50 in the southern state, rather than be a huge boon for Beasley.

At a time Democrats desperately need to seem normal, they are saddled with one of the least defensible policy positions in American life: that ending human life in the womb should be legal for any reason up until the moment the baby is being born.

The signature legislation nearly all of them voted for weeks ago would have forbidden state-level protections for babies with Down syndrome or other disabilities, overturned informed consent laws that have been upheld by the Supreme Court, prohibited state restrictions blocking abortion when the unborn child can feel pain, and completely removed conscientious protections for health-care employees who oppose abortion. This is an extremely radical set of positions. For instance, 75 percent of Americans support protecting the conscience rights of health-care employees. And seven out of ten Americans oppose aborting children because they have Down syndrome.

It’s also not just that Democrats have to affirmatively support that view but that they will also be saddled with the policy position that any restriction, no matter how minor and no matter how popular, such as a 15-week abortion ban, is untenable.

Democrats and their media allies are trying to spread conspiracy theories about banning contraception or same-sex marriage to make Republicans seem less moderate, but those efforts will suffer from the lack of evidence to support them. The pro-life movement has been vibrant and active for 50 solid years, marching each January in the nation’s capital, and working diligently to pass laws protecting human lives. There is no movement for the conspiracy theories being spread by corporate media.

Few people realize how radical the American abortion position was prior to Dobbs. This week, Noah Smith tweeted a picture of how restrictive European abortion laws are relative to the Roe era in the United States, adding, “Wow. Today I learned that Europe has more restrictive abortion laws than most of the U.S. did up until this week.”

While pro-lifers have known that for decades, the media — run by people with extremely liberal views on abortion — have hidden those facts from their readers and viewers. But Americans are learning these facts about the Democrat position and how radical it is.

Narratives In A Head-On Collision

Another problem for Democrats is that prior to Dobbs, the main campaign strategy was to gin up hysteria about the January 6 riot. Since the leak of the draft decision, abortion supporters have engaged in campaigns of violence against churches and maternal care centers.

Last week, prominent Democrats such as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and President Joe Biden began calling on their base voters to protest in the streets. Leading leftists also claimed the Supreme Court was now “illegitimate,” because it had ruled on the law in a way that differed from their preferred policies. Media figures began spreading disinformation about abortion being banned in America.

It will be exceedingly difficult to continue the January 6 show trial while this widespread and orchestrated campaign of violence is happening nationwide.

Exceedingly few Americans support Democrats’ policies in favor of abortion until the moment of birth. DC-based media and Democrat strategists exist in a bubble that isolates them from public opinion.

But elections happen in places where views have to be explicitly stated and contend with public opinion. Outside of a small handful of House districts in suburban areas dominated by wealthy and college-educated white women, the more GOP candidates speak confidently and unapologetically about their views, they will have the political edge.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is the Editor-in-Chief of The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College. A Fox News contributor, she is a regular member of the Fox News All-Stars panel on “Special Report with Bret Baier.