• 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




“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.

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.