• 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

Remember Those Twin City Cloudbursts IN OUR 1940 Summers?

 JUNE 29, 2022 BY JOHN HINDERAKER at Power Line:

HOT ENOUGH FOR YOU?

Each summer, whenever there is a heat wave, we are likely to see headlines touting the weather as evidence of global warming. But what do the data actually look like if you take a historical perspective? This Watts Up With That post provides a good overview of U.S. heat wave data. Here are some of the charts.

This is from the EPA, the U.S. Annual Heat Wave Index from 1895-2020:

These are from the Fourth U.S. National Climate Assessment in 2017:

This one is from 671 individual U.S. Historical Climatology Network stations. It shows the number of days per station per decade that qualified under the technical “heat wave” definition. The gray bars represent the U.S. as a whole, while the other lines are regional. There have been shifting regional weather patterns, but when you average it out across the U.S., the decades of the 10s, 20s and 30s all had more heat wave days than we have had since:

If you read the linked post, it also addresses the *adjustments* that climate alarmists use to change the historical record to fit their theory.

Go For It Dear Donald!

After Roe, Never Trumpers Should Just Admit They Were Wrong

BY: JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON at the Federalist:

JUNE 28, 2022

Donald Trump

The Never Trump faction is so committed to hating Trump it can’t think clearly about the end of Roe and give credit where credit is due.

Author John Daniel Davidson profile

JOHN DANIEL DAVIDSON

The left’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s historic decision last week overturning Roe v. Wade has been uniformly appalling but not at all surprising: violencecalls for more violencecalls to pack the court, ignore its decisions, dissolve it. In other words, about what you’d expect from people who want to destroy every institution they don’t control.

On the right, the reaction has been rather more mixed, mainly because of the cowardice and intellectual dishonesty of the Never Trump faction, whose leading lights can’t bring themselves to give credit to former President Donald Trump for accomplishing what the Republican establishment could not.

Make no mistake: without Trump, Roe would still be on the books. No other Republican candidate could have beaten Hillary Clinton in 2016, and no other GOP president would have yielded the results Trump did once in office.

Trump didn’t just deliver three solid originalist justices to the Supreme Court, he did so despite enormous pressure from Democrats and the media — pressure that any other politician almost certainly would have submitted to. Would any other Republican president have stood by Brett Kavanaugh amid the orchestrated smear campaign against him, or nominated someone like Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg less than six weeks before the 2020 presidential election? Of course not, and everyone knows it.

Trump was able to do these things precisely because he possesses qualities his Never Trump critics most deplore: combativeness, a disdain for the media, political instincts that told him the Supreme Court was of paramount importance to his conservative base and that he needed to deliver on the promises he made.

Indeed, crediting Trump for his central role in the overturning of Roe should not be a heavy lift, even for those who are no fans of the former president. You can think of him as a kind of Balaam’s ass, if you like, and still recognize the essential part he played. 

For Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, the easiest way to avoid this reckoning is simple hypocrisy. Just write the opposite of what you wrote in the past, and blame Trump for your intellectual dishonesty.

But for some Never Trumpers, the whole thing is… complicated. That’s how Timothy Carney of the American Enterprise Institute put it last week in a Washington Examiner column that was mostly a bunch of throat-clearing about how bad Trump was for the “GOP brand” and how much he hurt the conservative movement.

Never mind that the conservative movement Trump supposedly hurt has been working for decades to overturn Roe v. Wade, and indeed largely defined itself through opposition to abortion in an era when every major institution in American life was arrayed against it.

Carney doesn’t engage that argument, or any other, because he has no argument to make. He admits as much when he says, “no issue in politics is more important than abortion because no cause is more righteous than protecting innocent babies from slaughter. No president did more good on abortion than Trump. So this makes things complicated.”

No, it doesn’t. It only makes things complicated if you’re wedded to the idea that decorum is more important than actual victories for the conservative cause, or if you draw a paycheck from a Never Trump bastion like AEI. Maybe then it’s complicated. But out in the real world, where untold children will escape being butchered in the womb partly as a result of Trump’s resolve, it isn’t complicated at all. 

Read in the best possible light, Carney’s hand-wringing over Trump’s role in all this is at least a tacit acknowledgement that he might have been wrong. Not so for the impossible-to-parody Kevin Williamson of National Review, who wasted no time churning out a laughably dishonest column about how the end of Roe isn’t Trump’s victory. 

Why? Because, says Williamson, Trump did what any Republican president would have done and “delegated his judicial selections to the Federalist Society.” It does not seem to enter into Williamson’s thinking that Trump perhaps turned to the Federalist Society in light of the past failures of Republican presidents to nominate justices sufficiently originalist to overturn Roe. Indeed, it was a plurality opinion from a trio of justices appointed by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush that botched the chance to overturn Roe 30 years ago in Planned Parenthood v Casey, and instead maintained its central holding that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Never mind all that, says Williamson. “No conservative who knows how to read supported Trump in 2016 because he was solid on judicial originalism — or any other major conservative issue.” But as Williamson surely knows, many conservatives (including some literate ones!) supported Trump in 2016 precisely because he committed to nominating Supreme Court justices who were solid on judicial originalism, and even released a list of possible nominees in May 2016 — something no other GOP primary candidate had ever done. Indeed, his explicit commitment to nominate originalist justices is one reason many Republicans who were on the fence about Trump decided to vote for him in the end. 

None of this matters to Never Trumpers of Williamson’s bent of mind. To them, reality — even something as real and astounding as the end of Roe — will never overturn their smug conviction that they were right to oppose Trump. So satisfied are they in their own opinions and prejudices that nothing so mundane as actual events will ever persuade them they were wrong.

So be it. It’s not like the Republican Party needs the dozens of voters whose views these pundits represent. Williamson can go on writing his snarky, nattering columns peppered with snide little insults to Trump and the people who supported him. One has to pay the bills, after all, so he might as well have fun with it. Carney can go on striving to sound measured and respectable, for all it’s worth.

But the rest of us on the right, including some (like me) who have come to realize they were wrong about Trump, will remember that it took Trump, of all people, to bring about a result so glorious and long-sought that honest conservatives should be willing, even happy, to admit they were wrong. 

John Daniel Davidson is a senior editor at The Federalist. His writing has appeared in the Wall Street Journal, the Claremont Review of Books, The New York Post, and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter, @johnddavidson.

Delays, Delays, and More Delays!

June 29, 2022

What’s going on with our commercial airlines?

By Terry Paulding at American Thinker:

Every night, I hear a report on the network news announcing the number of flights canceled. If it’s a slow news day, reporters might interview a couple of irritated, stranded travelers. Thousands of flights are axed on any given day. Many more are delayed. News readers just read the report, without any substantive questioning about why there’s suddenly a great shortage of pilots. The weather is the only excuse ever offered, and that doesn’t work when there are no storms slowing things down.

What’s going on? We’ve never had a pilot shortage before. We may currently have more air travelers needing flights than a year ago, but not more than before COVID—and yet, here we are, facing an entirely new problem. It’s so bad that American Airlines is offering pilots on its regional carriers double and triple pay for the month of July if they’ll take extra flights.

It’s not hard to figure out what’s happening—despite the seeming prohibition on our pilots saying anything about it. We rarely hear a peep from them, at least on mainstream news outlets. There’s even a noticeable dearth of questions asked at Fox News of late. Nobody is questioning this fiasco beyond some Fox Business report of a lot of pilot retirements. It just is, apparently.

There are always going to be retirements and saying, as the link above does, that it’s “expensive to become a pilot.” Give me a break! That’s never been an issue before. So why even consider it now? What job does one get where advanced training doesn’t cost money?

Let’s put the blame for this shortage squarely where it belongs: On COVID “vaccination” policy. Many pilots who got the jabs are suffering injuries and have been unable to pass their required 6-month comprehensive physicals. None of us want a pilot who has a heart attack mid-flight. If you search the net, you come up with reports like this one from last week that pretty much says it all but they’re not from mainstream sources, of course. Such reports are forbidden fruit for widely heard reporters.

There’s also the flip side—if pilots refuse to get the jab, they can no longer fly due to mandates. We have a perfect storm: If pilots are vaccinated, many can’t fly because of vaccine injury—a state far, far more common than our government would lead you to believe. They are desperate to keep that fact hidden.

If you’re not vaccinated, you can’t fly either. If you’re in the military (many pilots go commercial after their service years), you have the same problem, so the routine feed of qualified military pilots who transition to commercial piloting is effectively halted as well. There are ample stories of military doctors losing their jobs because they won’t certify heart-damaged fliers. I also note that we’ve had an extraordinary number of military plane and helicopter accidents of late, none of which have been followed up on or logically explained.

Finally, I remember much talk early in the Biden administration about a push to certify more and more minorities, whether there are qualified candidates. This was big news for a brief while. I don’t know whether that push has continued but, if so, it might make a difference. I can only guess. Are airlines afraid they’ll get in trouble for certifying too many non-minorities?

Back in early 2021, I wrote a bunch of articles about our surveillance state and censorship. You can click on my byline for my article archive if you want to review any of them. I posited that, if we succumb to the type of censorship and coercion that has sadly now become routine, we will soon lose our free society and destroy our Republic. At this point, we’ve lost our free society and our Republic is teetering.

If we continue to allow the government and tech giants to run rough-shod over our rights, censor the truth and disallow open dissemination of important information, while forcing nonsensical medical interventions on our people, we will lose everything we hold sacred. There must be more people brave enough to report real news on mainstream platforms. This story is but one of many that need our attention. The ramifications, once more people connect the dots, will hopefully lead to further exposing the sick program we’ve been fed over the last several years. Only then can we end it.

Is Nasty Pelosi at the Vatican TO CLEANSE HER REGULAR DEM CRIMES, FORGIVE FOR HER HUSBAND’S ALCOHOLISM, OR BOTH?

Pelosi got communion at the Vatican. Now what?

by ED MORRISSEY at HotAir:  Jun 29, 2022  

AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone may ask himself the same question — but probably won’t, because there’s not much of a question to ask. Just weeks after announcing an edict that barred Nancy Pelosi from receiving the Eucharist at Mass. Today, the Vatican offered Pelosi communion within the Holy See, contradicting one of its own bishops.

What does that mean? Well… not anywhere near as much as it seems:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi received communion while attending mass at the Vatican in Rome, despite the fact the archbishop in San Francisco said she would be denied the sacrament because of her views on abortion.

Ms Pelosi, who is a devout Catholic, received the sacrament at a mass spoken by Pope Francis at St Peter’s Basillica on Wednesday. The mass was done for the feast of St Peter and St Paul.

The Pope does not give communion during such ceremonies and anyone who wishes to take communion simply has to approach one of the priests at the basillica. [sic]

Exactly. Recall what Cordileone actually wrote in his edict. He didn’t order priests to deny Pelosi the Eucharist, at least not explicitly. He did write that she was “not to be admitted to Holy Communion,” but never explained how that would work. The old model of small neighborhood churches where priests exclusively distribute the Eucharist and know everyone at the altar rail are long gone. In most Catholic churches, which now tend to be larger and serve a wider community, lay people distribute communion along with the priests, with no authority to deny it to anyone who presents themselves. The edict was meant as a directive to Pelosi, to instruct her not to present herself for communion, especially in churches under Cordileone’s authority.

The Vatican doesn’t have a requirement to abide by that, but they also don’t have a mechanism to do so even if the Holy See desired it. They have more than enough priests to distribute the Eucharist at Masses, but they also have no idea who’s prepared to receive and who isn’t. Almost certainly, none of the priests at the Vatican would have recognized Pelosi anyway.

The upshot of all this is that this isn’t likely to be a reflection of the Vatican’s view of the edict from Cordileone. In fact, as Inés San Martin reminds us at Crux, Pope Francis himself at least gave Cordileone some indirect moral support on that point, albeit a year earlier:

Pope Francis referred to the question of pro-abortion politicians and Communion in 2021, on his return to Rome from Slovakia.

At the time, Francis said that the Eucharist is for those who are “in the community” and politicians who support abortion are “outside of the community.”

However, he also said that in these cases, it’s a pastoral matter that must be addressed by the individual’s pastor.

Pope Francis began his response by saying that he’s never denied Communion to anyone, but also that, “I don’t know if any came in this condition. But I was never conscious of having in front of me a person like the one you describe.”

In other words, the story here isn’t “Vatican Contradicts Bishop over Abortion and Communion.” The story here is “Catholic Woman Defies Her Bishop on Other Side of the World.” Even the normally progressive-friendly National Catholic Reporter didn’t bother to comment on Pelosi’s communion, at least as of midday when I was writing this post. That’s because it may be news, but it’s not really much of a story … except in how it relates to Pelosi’s orientation to the church and her recognition of the authority of her bishop. And that hasn’t changed at all, so even as news it’s not much.